Burden of Proof

[Davian]

I could go into the laws of science, but you'd deny them.
I could cite that abiogenesis is impossible but you'd pretend it wasn't.
I could cite irreducible complexity but you'd spew molecules to man nonsense.
I could show a 6,000 year history between God and man, but you'll say you don't believe it.
I could put a .45 to your head and shoot you. Then you'd know God was real, but I don't do such things.
I explained why God would never be proven. If you can't grasp the concept, it's not my fault.

So you *could* provide proof for this God, but you say God can never be proven.

Note the title of this thread. The burden of proof is on you. You need to work on this.

You asked to me show how God was significant. I did and you changed the argument.

You changed it to religion, and I changed it back.

Frankly, God doesn't believe in you either.

Hilarious.

Do you speak for this God?

You are on a Christain website touting your ignorance by pretending that all of the magnificence and complexity of the universe is no indication whatever of a Creator. Whatever.

Are you accusing me of lying?

Believe as you will. God is not lessened by your disbelief.

Note the title of this thread. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Those who seek God will find Him. Those who close their eyes will never see him. Saying a God you've never sought does not exist makes as much sense as saying a painting you've never seen was never painted. Others can testify, but it's just words until you see it.

We can agree that paintings exist. What evidence do you have for the existence of deities? Are they even possible?

 

[Dieselman]

So you *could* provide proof for this God, but you say God can never be proven.

Evidence is only proof to the person who believes the evidence. It you demand physical proof of a supernatural entity it's an exercise in futility. By its very nature the supernatural cannot be validated or invalidated through natrual means.

You changed it to religion, and I changed it back.

No, you did. 85% of the country believes in God, not just religion.

Are you accusing me of lying?

Yep. To yourself first, and then to others.

Note the title of this thread. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

As I said, trying to prove the existence of a supernatural God by natural means is stupidity. Mankind had knowledge of God centuries before you were born. You're the one saying there is no God. Yours is the new assertion, so the burdon of proof is yours.

We can agree that paintings exist.

Why? You have no more evidence of the paintings than you do of God.

 

[ADTClone]

You're using several of my least favorite rhetorical moves here. First of all, there's your use of "we". I constantly hear people saying "we do this" or "we think that" when they actually mean "I think this" or "I think that." By misusing 'we', the speaker pretends that there's a consensus in the debate when there actually isn't one. If you and I are not in agreement about philosophical premises, you shouldn't imply that we are. On the other hand, if you wish to use "we" to refer to some group that doesn't include me, I'd suggest you be clear about what group that is.

I apologise if I wasn't clear of the group I was referring to when I used the word "we". I was referring to the human race; all human beings, including you. It doesn't mean you or everyone in that group specifically weeded out things that weren't true, but rather that it has given every human being the ability to distinguish factual claims from those that are untrue.

If the maker of the video is discussing the requirements for "a proper argument that determines the truth", that's only rephrases the question of where his authority comes from. Who is he to lay down the law about which arguments are proper and which ones determine the truth?

Does the argument itself determine truth?

No, the argument is simply a structure that we can use to come to a conclusion, and as long as:

a) The argument is valid AND
b) All premise are true

Then we can be certain that the conclusion is true. These are based off logical absolutes which are true in reality.

Lastly, since you claim that people needed to think a certain way "or else we'd still be in a world where the world is flat &c...", then by your own argument shouldn't you provide some backup for that claim? Personally I don't recall Pythagoras or any of the others who shaped ancient or medieval cosmology ever using the phrases 'burden of proof' or any synonym for it.

(Likewise it's a common tactic for atheists to claim that all academics take their side in a certain debate, or that all scientists do, or that all peer reviewed papers are written in a certain way, or so forth. But when challenged to offer backup for such claims, they never do.)

Thank you for alerting me of that, and I will concede that part of my argument, as you are correct.

But I will retain the meaning of that particular part of the argument, in that given the ability to distinguish truths from falsehoods in a logical way, it is more likely that when we came upon a decision on whether something is true or false, we'd find the right answer.

 

[ADTClone]

Please go back and re-read your history. This nation was founded on faith in God. Washington was very religious. Jefferson held church services in the capitol. Faith was so imprtant to the founders that they enshrined it in law; that the government should not preference one religion over another, and could not infringe on anyone's right to believe as they chose. As for convincing others, I believe Jesus commanded us to spread the gospel. It's up to you whether you accept it.

Two points I will make:

1) I actually live in Australia, there are other countries outside of America
2) America was not founded on faith in God

You can confirm this for yourself. Have you ever read the constitution? No where in the constitution is there a mention of the Christian God. Infact, the constitution defines a secular nation, independent of any specific belief.

If you can provide evidence that America was founded on Christian belief(which would be apparent in the constitution if that was true), then your claim would be justified.

False assumption. You re-define reality as the only the natural world without any evidence of that. The history of man is repleat with stories of the supernatural including a 6,000 year relationship with God. It is you now making the claim without evidence because it is you who is challenging what man has experienced throughout his existence.

No, let me make it more clear.

When I speak of reality, I mean specifically natural reality. Everything in our natural reality(which most of us call reality) can be queried by science. You made the following statement:

"If God exists, then He must be supernatural. If God is supernatural, then His existence cannot be proven scientifically."

Everything that is super natural is not within our natural reality by definition; they are super natural. If God's existence is also impossible to prove, then it must be impossible for God to leave the super natural.

Hence, to claim that this super natural being came into our natural reality is contradictory, because if he did he would no longer be super natural, he would be apart of our natural reality. In which case we could prove his existence scientifically.

As we can't prove his existence scientifically as you stated, then he must be outside of our natural reality and hence has no effect on our natural reality.

I hope you understand this argument, because I have made it as clear as possible.

He is part of the lives of 85% of Americans. You are a small minority. Why should we listen to you?

Fallacy of "Ad Populum". Just because a majority believe in something doesn't make it true.

By the same logic, Allah must also exist. Thousands of years ago the majority of people alive believed the Earth was flat, that didn't make it true did it?

Again, you re-define reason to suit your own terms. Refusal to believe in the Creator despite a world full of evidence all around you that you refuse to see is not reason, it's blindness.

Evidence? Care to elaborate? I thought no scientific evidence could be found to prove the existence of this God, correct?

What would you define faith as? I see faith as believe with no good reason.

I don't. Abortion is the contracting of a third party to end the life of a living being. If I can't hire the mob to kill my neighbor, why should a woman be able to hire an abortionist to kill her child? The definition of marriage has been established centuries ago. Liberals are the ones seeking to re-deine it. Marriage has always been a religious institution anyway. Better to shun it. As for law, I refer you to the Constitution and our founding documents.

Good to hear in that case. For the note, marriage hasn't always been defined the way it is today. The initial purpose of marriage was a legal contract for a man to own a woman.

I really suggest you actually read the constitution.

Fine. Show me a 6,000 year history and a written record of witnesses to his miracles and then we'll talk. Until then, you're merely babbling. After all, you're the one who said there is no supernatural and to validate your agument you envoke it.

6,000 year history? The Bible is only 2,000 years old mate, give a few hundred years if you want to include the Jewish old testament.

I can provide a great set of resources for you to begin your journey with the "Giant Spaghetti Monster". This information is more up to date and you can find personal witness testimonies and a great amount of recorded history of this amazing being.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...&sugexp=chrome,mod=8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Davian]

Evidence is only proof to the person who believes the evidence.

The power of circular logic.

It you demand physical proof of a supernatural entity it's an exercise in futility. By its very nature the supernatural cannot be validated or invalidated through natrual means.

Or differentiated from 'non-existant'. Hence your problem.

No, you did. 85% of the country believes in God, not just religion.

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

Yep. To yourself first, and then to others.

Another claim with no evidence. Is this a theist thing?

As I said, trying to prove the existence of a supernatural God by natural means is stupidity.

In your last post you said you could do it.

Mankind had knowledge of God centuries before you were born.

No, they had religion. It is up to you demonstrate they actually had knowledge of deities.

You're the one saying there is no God. Yours is the new assertion, so the burdon of proof is yours.

Where did I say that? That was a really lame effort at trying to shift the burden of proof, given the title of this thread. Next, are you going to try to get me to prove a negative?

Why? You have no more evidence of the paintings than you do of God.

I see that you have edited my post to alter its intent. I find that to be intellectually dishonest. Let's try again:

What evidence do you have for the existence of deities? Are they even possible?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Thomas did have faith, but he didn't have the Holy Spirit yet and his faith wasn't strong enough to overcome what he saw with his own eyes. Do you remember what Jesus said about the matter?
John 20: 29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Yes, but that's not faith... Thomas accepted the claim he was resurrected only after he was presented with evidence.

 

[ADTClone]

I propose that Dieselman actually watch the video and attempt to understand what it is saying.

Many of the issues that Davian brought up in his reply to you are actually covered in the video, with explanations why not to do it. You seem to be the epitomy of someone who misuses the burden of proof Dieselman.

 

[Dieselman]

Two points I will make:

1) I actually live in Australia, there are other countries outside of America

As you recall, I said "this country."

2) America was not founded on faith in God

America was founded on freedom by men who had a strong faith in God and who valued freedom of religion as important as any other freedom.

Have you ever read the constitution? No where in the constitution is there a mention of the Christian God.

Perhaps you should worry about the Australian constitution and I'll worry about ours. Our founders did not want a state church or a state that infringed on the freedom of men to believe or doubt as they would. It's written as a secular document for that reason. While the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, preference toward any particular religion was considered tyranny.

When I speak of reality, I mean specifically natural reality. Everything in our natural reality(which most of us call reality) can be queried by science. You made the following statement:

"If God exists, then He must be supernatural. If God is supernatural, then His existence cannot be proven scientifically."

Everything that is super natural is not within our natural reality by definition; they are super natural. If God's existence is also impossible to prove, then it must be impossible for God to leave the super natural.

Suppose I limited science to what could be seen and proven from Australia. You could say that anything that can't be seen from Australia must not exist. You would be about as accurate as the assumption you make now. You claim that there is no existence but the natural world, but you have and present no evidence of this. When one looks at the vastness and complexity of the universe it's easy to see the handiwork of an omnipotent God. Scientists have produced hundreds of theories as to how the universe came about, but the simple fact is everything cannot come from nothing and order cannot come from disorder.

The history of man chronicles his relationship with God; from Adam forward. The Bible chronicles prophesies made and fulfilled many years later; prophesies that could only have been made by one who knew the future.

If you know anything about science you know that even one violation disproves accepted science law. Even if you discount everything ever written before you to be a lie, you would also have to consider the many thousands of people in contemporary times who have experienced things that science cannot possibly explain; things that can only be supernatural. These things include but are not limited to; mysterious lights that seem to appear and disappear in seconds, "orbs" of energy or light recorded by camera's, voices recorded on audio tape, precognition, every recorded incidence of psychic assistance in police investigations, cats or other pets knowing of an owner's death in advance, dreams that come true, prayers that are answered, visions of angels or demons etc. The number of people who have to be lying for you to be right would be in the tens of millions.

 

[Davian]

<snip>
Suppose I limited science to what could be seen and proven from Australia. You could say that anything that can't be seen from Australia must not exist. You would be about as accurate as the assumption you make now. You claim that there is no existence but the natural world, but you have and present no evidence of this. When one looks at the vastness and complexity of the universe it's easy to see the handiwork of an omnipotent God.

Detail how the universe would look if it were not the handiwork of an omnipotent deity.

Scientists have produced hundreds of theories as to how the universe came about, but the simple fact is everything cannot come from nothing and order cannot come from disorder.

Where did you establish this "fact"?

The history of man chronicles his relationship with God; from Adam forward.

How would one verify this "history"?

The Bible chronicles prophesies made and fulfilled many years later; prophesies that could only have been made by one who knew the future.

It was not as if the people writing the books were not aware of the prophecies that needed to be fulfilled.

If you know anything about science you know that even one violation disproves accepted science law.

Have you got one?

Even if you discount everything ever written before you to be a lie, you would also have to consider the many thousands of people in contemporary times who have experienced things that science cannot possibly explain; things that can only be supernatural.

Define what you mean by "supernatural". Try to do it without telling me what it isn't.

These things include but are not limited to; mysterious lights that seem to appear and disappear in seconds,

UFOs!

"orbs" of energy or light recorded by camera's,

Or dust caught in the flash.

voices recorded on audio tape,

Pareidolia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

precognition,

Examples, please.

every recorded incidence of psychic assistance in police investigations,

Cite one.

cats or other pets knowing of an owner's death in advance,

How is this evidence of the 'supernatural'?

dreams that come true,

and those that do not.

prayers that are answered,

with a yes, no, maybe, later, and silence.

visions of angels or demons etc.

Hallucinations?

The number of people who have to be lying for you to be right would be in the tens of millions.

Or self-deceived.

 

[AlexBP]

Which of these 'featherweight intellectual arguments' do you specifically object to, and why?

There are so many bad parts of the video that it's tough to know where the start. The entire video is based on having animated defenders of theistic positions say certain things, which most real Christian apologists would never actually say. I believe the trendy term for this sort of thing is 'straw man arguments'. At no point does it seriously tackle the most widely read and respected Christian apologists, and the same is true for every silly YouTube video of this sort that I've ever seen.

The whole video begins with the notion that believing in God is the same as believing in unicorns, monsters, &c... Anyone who starts their 'argument' like this has practically declared that they're not interested in serious debate. Even many atheists are tired of hearing this.

The ending discussion of science might as well have been copied from a 7th-grade textbook. It makes false claims, such as that the scientific community subjects all claims to the same types of tests and is willing to fairly test any new ideas. In fact, the scientific community functions precisely by not doing those things. It is designed to not bother testing and new claims outside of the dominant paradigms. This much has been established by research such as T H. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. That book, and a great deal of other research, have established at length that the 7th-grade textbook version of the scientific method doesn't exist in reality. Apparently the maker of this video just hopes that viewers won't be familiar with the facts on this issue.

 

[AlexBP]

I apologise if I wasn't clear of the group I was referring to when I used the word "we". I was referring to the human race; all human beings, including you. It doesn't mean you or everyone in that group specifically weeded out things that weren't true, but rather that it has given every human being the ability to distinguish factual claims from those that are untrue.

But this is one of the things that I don't understand. The video, according to you, is explaining what process needs to be followed to have a "proper" philosophical argument, or as another poster put it, to be taken seriously in real "philosophical discourse". In order for such claims to be valid, there would have to be a consensus among some group of people--not necessarily the whole human race--about what makes a proper philosophical discourse. Is there any group of people that has reached such a consesnsus?

 

[Davian]

...
The whole video begins with the notion that believing in God is the same as believing in unicorns, monsters, &c... Anyone who starts their 'argument' like this has practically declared that they're not interested in serious debate.

That was the impression I got from Dieselman when, earlier in this thread, he equated "God" and the "supernatural" with "mysterious lights that seem to appear and disappear in seconds, "orbs" of energy or light recorded by camera's, voices recorded on audio tape, precognition, every recorded incidence of psychic assistance in police investigations, cats or other pets knowing of an owner's death in advance..."

Even many atheists are tired of hearing this.
...

Indeed.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There are so many bad parts of the video that it's tough to know where the start. The entire video is based on having animated defenders of theistic positions say certain things, which most real Christian apologists would never actually say.

The video does quote some professional apologists, but it is more geared toward the claims of lay believers, who do say these things. All the time.

I know this because I see it almost every single day, whether talking to street preachers on the way to work, listening to Christian radio in the car, talking to family members or coming on this message board.

At no point does it seriously tackle the most widely read and respected Christian apologists

So? It's still tackling a very real and very prevalent phenomena.

and the same is true for every silly YouTube video of this sort that I've ever seen.

Youtube is not the best place for that, but there are many, many videos tackling the 'most respected Christian apologists' (there's a loaded term if I ever heard one) if you look. Including other videos by QualiaSoup.

The whole video begins with the notion that believing in God is the same as believing in unicorns, monsters

Yes and no.

More to the point, what it says is that naked assertions about God should be subject to scrutiny, just like any other naked assertion.

Do you disagree with this?

Even many atheists are tired of hearing this.

Maybe.

This atheist is tired of having to explain special pleading fallacies to theists.

The ending discussion of science might as well have been copied from a 7th-grade textbook. It makes false claims, such as that the scientific community subjects all claims to the same types of tests and is willing to fairly test any new ideas. In fact, the scientific community functions precisely by not doing those things. It is designed to not bother testing and new claims outside of the dominant paradigms. This much has been established by research such as T H. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. That book, and a great deal of other research, have established at length that the 7th-grade textbook version of the scientific method doesn't exist in reality. Apparently the maker of this video just hopes that viewers won't be familiar with the facts on this issue.

Firstly, you speak as if Kuhn is the final word on this subject. His ideas have been scrutinized and debated for decades, just like any other philosopher of science. There are no cut-and-dry 'facts on this issue'. That's precisely the point of philosophy.

Secondly, whether you accept the 'paradigm shift' hypothesis or not, nowhere do Kuhn's ideas actually undermine the methodology of science, which this argument pertains to.

I still want to know what you think of the central arguments in this video -

Do you or do you not agree that the burden of proof is on the positive claimant? If not, why not?

Do you or do you not agree that claims about God should be subject to scrutiny? If not, why not?

 

[ADTClone]

But this is one of the things that I don't understand. The video, according to you, is explaining what process needs to be followed to have a "proper" philosophical argument, or as another poster put it, to be taken seriously in real "philosophical discourse". In order for such claims to be valid, there would have to be a consensus among some group of people--not necessarily the whole human race--about what makes a proper philosophical discourse. Is there any group of people that has reached such a consesnsus?

Is there a specific group of people? I'm not sure on that. Philosophers for one, anyone who follows the scientific method. Furthermore, this method leads to rationality, so dare I say anyone who is rational would have to be in consensus with this method.

It's not about what makes "proper" philosophical discourse, it's about what yields the truth. It has been proven that this method of investigation yields facts, and keeps us away from things that are not true. Rationality involves good reason which involves being able to separate things that are truth from things that are false.


About the video addressing Christian apologist arguments that aren't representative of the entire Christian apologist population, I would not agree. A lot of Christian apologists use these arguments, not all but a lot. The ones you call "better Christian apologists" most likely don't use these arguments because they are bad. This video isn't suppose to destroy all Christian apologists, it was focusing on specific arguments that people use around the concept of burden of proof.

But talking about some better Christian apologist arguments, name me one? I've never seen a reasonable rational apologist argument for the existence of God.

 

[ADTClone]

America was founded on freedom by men who had a strong faith in God and who valued freedom of religion as important as any other freedom.

Perhaps you should worry about the Australian constitution and I'll worry about ours. Our founders did not want a state church or a state that infringed on the freedom of men to believe or doubt as they would. It's written as a secular document for that reason. While the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, preference toward any particular religion was considered tyranny.

But just because they may or may not have had faith in a God or followed some kind of religion doesn't mean America was founded on it.

The nation itself was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I can say that quite confidently, as you have said yourself, the constitution promotes secularity. Judeo-Christian principles promote belief in only one God, and God help you if you don't believe in him!

But other than that, what other "Judeo-Christian" principles was it founded on?

Suppose I limited science to what could be seen and proven from Australia. You could say that anything that can't be seen from Australia must not exist. You would be about as accurate as the assumption you make now. You claim that there is no existence but the natural world, but you have and present no evidence of this. When one looks at the vastness and complexity of the universe it's easy to see the handiwork of an omnipotent God. Scientists have produced hundreds of theories as to how the universe came about, but the simple fact is everything cannot come from nothing and order cannot come from disorder.

1. I never said there was no existence but in the natural world. I suggest you reread what I said.

2. Do you know the difference between a universe that was made by a God and one that wasn't? How did you come to the conclusion that the universe must have been made by a God?

3. We don't know where the universe came from, scientists don't claim the universe came from absolutely nothing. We don't know, and it's asinine that you think you know based off "faith".

4. Of course order can come from disorder. Grab a container, fill it with water, poor in three types of sand/soil, each having different mass. Shake up the container, and the sand will go from disorder(all mixed together) to order(separated into layers based on density).

If you're talking about the second law of thermodynamics, I suggest you attempt to understand it a bit better before making reference to it. But since when can't order come from disorder? That's a very bold assertion that you must back up with evidence.

The history of man chronicles his relationship with God; from Adam forward. The Bible chronicles prophesies made and fulfilled many years later; prophesies that could only have been made by one who knew the future.

What prophesies? For something to be a prophesy it must be very specific, including dates, times, exact locations and an exact description of what is going to occur. We have to be able to distinguish it from random chance. Otherwise, it's just like the prophesy I'm going to make:

"In ten years time, I'm going to eat lunch"

If you know anything about science you know that even one violation disproves accepted science law. Even if you discount everything ever written before you to be a lie, you would also have to consider the many thousands of people in contemporary times who have experienced things that science cannot possibly explain; things that can only be supernatural. These things include but are not limited to; mysterious lights that seem to appear and disappear in seconds, "orbs" of energy or light recorded by camera's, voices recorded on audio tape, precognition, every recorded incidence of psychic assistance in police investigations, cats or other pets knowing of an owner's death in advance, dreams that come true, prayers that are answered, visions of angels or demons etc. The number of people who have to be lying for you to be right would be in the tens of millions.

And science does have ways to explain that, including but not limited to:

a) Specks of dust on cameras
b) Electro magnetic phenomena
c) The psychology of suggestion(in regards to the voice recordings)
d) Common sense and cold reading(in regards to psychics)
e) Coincidence(unless you're going to tell me 100% of dreams come through. Billions of people have dreams, they're part of imagination, of course some of them will come true!)
f) Mental illness and hallucination

I don't think millions of people are lying. Some people think they see these things, but our mind is prone to mistake. I could go into a lot of areas where our mind can be tricked.

This is the foundation of UFO sightings, hallucinations, "psychic ability", confirmation bias, suggestion and the list goes on.

Never has any psychic or super natural claim as listed above has been proven. Give me a specific example of one of the above, something that has actually happened in real life.

 

[Dieselman]

The nation itself was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I can say that quite confidently, as you have said yourself, the constitution promotes secularity. Judeo-Christian principles promote belief in only one God, and God help you if you don't believe in him!

However, the responsibility to believe or reject the words of God lie with the individual, not government mandate. The first three commandments deal with man's relationship with God. They are left to that realm. The fourth commandment is to keep the Sabbath holy, and in keeping with that many communities would not allow businesses to be open on Sunday. The sixth, seventh and ninth commandments are enshrined in law, precluding murder, theft and perjury. Adultery, while not a crime, was considered to be abhorrent moral behavior.

1. I never said there was no existence but in the natural world. I suggest you reread what I said.

Your contention is that if something cannot be proven to exist in the physical world than it must not exist. Conversely, if God exists in the supernatural world that He could not cross over into the physical world which He made and over which He has dominion. It's absolutely not true. God still shows his presence to this day. You cannot find what you do not seek. If you don;t look for God, you simply can't see the evidence of His presence. However, most of the world disagrees with you. They don't all believe the same way, but most people realize that there is a God of some form and that there is a life which supersedes this one.

2. Do you know the difference between a universe that was made by a God and one that wasn't? How did you come to the conclusion that the universe must have been made by a God?

1. The universe is made of matter. Matter is in a constant state of increasing entropy. As a whole, the universe is winding down and will eventually be basically a soup of energy dispersed more or less equally throughout its expanse. Matter is not eternal.
2. The universe exists, despite the fact that it cannot be created from nothingness by any natural force. All the theories ever postulated cannot overcome that basic law of physics. You can pretend that it does in the quantum level, where subatomic particles lacking specific gravity bond and unbond, thus appearing to form and disappear from detection, but these quantum characteristics of particles which already exist have no bearing on larger particles which have mass and gravity. Also, even subatomic particles must have an origin.
3. There are patterns to the universe. If the universe was formed by a "big bang" they resulting blast pattern could not possible take the formation of the universe as we know it. Also, if BB enthusiasts are to be believed, a singularity which comprised of all the matter in the universe would have a gravity so strong nothing could possibly escape it. It wouldn't form in the first place because there would have to be a compressing force. Once it existed, no force that exists could overcome the gravity. Also, if our solar system was formed from any kind of a rapidly expanding force, all the planets would rotate in the same direction. They do not. This is not possible by natural forces.

Regarding the 6,000 year history of man's interaction with God, that dates back to Adam. As for as the age of the Bible, Job was written about 1,500 BC.

4. Of course order can come from disorder. Grab a container, fill it with water, poor in three types of sand/soil, each having different mass. Shake up the container, and the sand will go from disorder(all mixed together) to order(separated into layers based on density).

Same test, only without the "scientific" dishonesty. Take a jar full of sand and dye it three colors; red, blue and green in equal amounts. Then blend the sand together to represent true disorder. Now shake the jar until it forms three perfect layers according to color. You'll be shaking the jar for the rest of your life.

If you're talking about the second law of thermodynamics, I suggest you attempt to understand it a bit better before making reference to it.

Actually, I suggest that YOU attempt to understand it better before you make reference to it. Every atheist I've ever encountered fails to grasp thhe significance of the basic laws of physics because they get in the way of what they have chosen to believe.

What prophesies? For something to be a prophesy it must be very specific,

They were.

including dates, times, exact locations and an exact description of what is going to occur.

No they don't. The only requirement was that they come true. False prophets were stoned to death. Most prophesies were rather enigmatic. If I told you you were going to be hit by a bus in New York on Tuesday, you would make sure you stayed out of New York and stayed inside. If I said that in the year of the great 54/44 your end would come from a group of twenty in a place where you should not be, you could still be hit by a bus in the street on the day Romney beats Obama with 54% of the vote Vs 44%. Nostradamus predicted two missiles hitting the new city in 1999. He only missed it by two years. Interestingly, Nostradamus was not even inspired by God.

And science does have ways to explain that, including but not limited to:

a) Specks of dust on cameras

Specks of dust on camera's don't produce light spots inconsistent with previous and subsequent pictures. A blockage in exposure results in a loss of recorded information, not a light spot over the top of recorded information. The resulting spot would be paper base white, not a light spot with the rest of the picture in the background. Droplets of developer on the negative or distortions to the negative are too easily seen to make anyone thing the pictures weren't sloppy fakes. Also, many such images were recorded by electronic cameras which don't have such characteristics.

b) Electro magnetic phenomena

Electro-magnetism doesn't just appear without causation. The appearance of a random electro-magnetic field is as explainable as an actual ghost sighting.

c) The psychology of suggestion(in regards to the voice recordings)

In some, possibly, but not in all. White noise cannot fabricate words. Some of the recordings are extremely clear.

d) Common sense and cold reading(in regards to psychics)

I think most psychics are frauds, but there have been many cases where they have helped locate bodies, found murder weapons and have known things they had no way of knowing. The Bible mentions those who have "familiar spirits." A familiar spirit is a demon that is invited to share the body of the host so that the familiar can communicate with the spirit world. One such case is the Witch of Endor, who summoned the spirit of Samuel for Saul. Ouija boards use familiar spirits. If your view of the world is correct, in every single case where someone feels a response they are either lying or insane.

e) Coincidence(unless you're going to tell me 100% of dreams come through. Billions of people have dreams, they're part of imagination, of course some of them will come true!)

Sometimes they are imagination, sometimes they are cause and effect, and sometimes things we see in our dreams can't be explained. Just because you don't believe something, it doesn't mean it isn't real.

f) Mental illness and hallucination

Like when 70,000 people witnessed the Miracle of the Sun?
In Ezekiel 37:10-14, the prophet receives a vision in which Israel was seen as a scattering of dried-up bones. In this vision, God tells Ezekiel that the bones (Israel) would be brought back to life. Just as Ezekiel had prophesied about 2600 years ago, the Jews were brought back to the land, and the country of Israel was brought back to life. Israel re-established sovereignty in 1948, a mere three years after the end of the Holocaust, during which the Nazis killed about one-third of the world’s Jewish population.

In Isaiah 66:7-8, the prophet foreshadowed the re-birth of Israel in 1948. Isaiah describes a woman giving birth before going into labor, and he speaks of a country being born in one day. This accurately describes what happened on May 14, 1948 - when the Jews declared independence for Israel as a united and sovereign nation for the first time in 2900 years.

In Ezekiel 4:3-6, the prophet said the Jews, who had lost control of their homeland, would be punished for 430 years. This prophecy, according to Bible scholar Grant Jeffrey, pinpointed the 1948 rebirth of Israel.

In Leviticus 26:3, 7-8, the Bible says that the army of Israel would have a supernatural power to prevail during times of conflict, if the people are obedient to the Lord. This Bible passage says that 5 people would be able to chase away 100 people, and that 100 would be able to chase away 10,000.

Within hours of Israel's declaration of independence in 1948 the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq invaded. There were fewer than 1 million Jews fighting nations with 20 million Arabs. Not only did Israel win, they expanded their territory by 50%.

In 1967, the Six Day War, the Israelis attacked the surrounding air forces of their enemies and won control of Jerusalem for the first time in 2,000 years.

Again in 1973 the Arabs attacked, and once more, AS PROPHESIED Israel won and took even more territory. These were ancient Biblical prophesies that were fulfilled in the modern era.

 

[AlexBP]

Is there a specific group of people? I'm not sure on that. Philosophers for one, anyone who follows the scientific method. Furthermore, this method leads to rationality, so dare I say anyone who is rational would have to be in consensus with this method.

It's not about what makes "proper" philosophical discourse, it's about what yields the truth. It has been proven that this method of investigation yields facts, and keeps us away from things that are not true. Rationality involves good reason which involves being able to separate things that are truth from things that are false.

As I've already mentioned, I'm not easily impressed by claims that all members of a certain group of intellectuals take a certain approach to anything. Do all philosophers employ and defend the type of reasoning that you prefer? Really? Ever heard of Foucault? I really doubt that there's anything at all that all philosophers, or even all modern philosophers, agree on.

The views of "anyone who follows the scientific method" are, if anything, harder to find a consensus on. Middle school science textbooks have a description of 'the scientific method', but that's not what actually scientists in the lab do. If we agreed on a more loose definition of 'the scientific method', we might find that certain people generally use that for scientific problems, but those are not the only questions that human beings confront. You appear to be saying--correct me if I'm wrong--that the scientific method is the sole one that leads to rationality and yields the truth. One might wonder, if that's true, why only a small percentage of the departments at universities are science departments, and why something like 5% of graduates major in the hard sciences. Plainly academia as a whole has decided that there's a great deal which may yield truth outside of hard science.

Let me offer an alternative assessment. Every human being confronts countless questions in life, questions that cover a huge variety. Does my mother exist? What should I have for lunch today? What did I have for lunch yesterday? Which candidate should I vote for in the upcoming election? Which books are worthy of being read? Does God exist? If I feel somewhat sick, should I go to work or stay home? How should I invest my retirement savings? Should I propose to my girlfriend? &c... &c.... Since there are so many questions and so many different types of questions, it's impossible to nail down a single, unified approach that will yield the truth on every one. Instead, when confronting a question, I use common sense to determine what's the correct approach for answering that question. In some cases, a scientific and experimental approach is the right one. In other cases, it certainly is not.

 

[sandwiches]

As I've already mentioned, I'm not easily impressed by claims that all members of a certain group of intellectuals take a certain approach to anything. Do all philosophers employ and defend the type of reasoning that you prefer? Really? Ever heard of Foucault? I really doubt that there's anything at all that all philosophers, or even all modern philosophers, agree on.

The views of "anyone who follows the scientific method" are, if anything, harder to find a consensus on. Middle school science textbooks have a description of 'the scientific method', but that's not what actually scientists in the lab do. If we agreed on a more loose definition of 'the scientific method', we might find that certain people generally use that for scientific problems, but those are not the only questions that human beings confront. You appear to be saying--correct me if I'm wrong--that the scientific method is the sole one that leads to rationality and yields the truth. One might wonder, if that's true, why only a small percentage of the departments at universities are science departments, and why something like 5% of graduates major in the hard sciences. Plainly academia as a whole has decided that there's a great deal which may yield truth outside of hard science.

Let me offer an alternative assessment. Every human being confronts countless questions in life, questions that cover a huge variety. Does my mother exist? What should I have for lunch today? What did I have for lunch yesterday? Which candidate should I vote for in the upcoming election? Which books are worthy of being read? Does God exist? If I feel somewhat sick, should I go to work or stay home? How should I invest my retirement savings? Should I propose to my girlfriend? &c... &c.... Since there are so many questions and so many different types of questions, it's impossible to nail down a single, unified approach that will yield the truth on every one. Instead, when confronting a question, I use common sense to determine what's the correct approach for answering that question. In some cases, a scientific and experimental approach is the right one. In other cases, it certainly is not.

Philosophy or whatever else aside, these are a lot of words for trying to evade the main point of this thread: If you're interested in convincing people of a claim, you back it up. It is not up to me to falsify or verify your claim, no matter what sophistry you try to pull.