Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What special exception am I asking for? The question was about evidence for the supernatural, if you're simply going to write off supernatural explanations as a rule then all you're doing is begging the question.
In the context of a forum, there isn't really space to make the full case. I've highlighted the primary considerations, which you don't seem to understand beccause you seem to think I am saying far more than I am.
The question at hand wasn't supernatural explanations with no detectable effect, but the case for the resurrection. Rather than addressing my points he's simply trying to accuse me of engaging in a fallacy, simply because I am not writing off supernatural explanation as a rule.
Yes, but it's something of a red herring. There is no scientific evidence whatever of the resurrection, so there is nothing for science to evaluate as to whether it was a supernatural event. There is nothing science can say about it one way or the other.
Scientific evidence is not the only sort of evidence, nor was I claiming that science has any say on the matter. The whole thing started because one of the atheists did the typical atheist thing of asserting that there is "no" evidence, so I countered by pointing out that there is a circumstantial case for the resurrection and circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence. Just because science is properly silent on the matter doesn't mean we can't address it in some way, particularly by making the kinds of arguments that take place regarding historical events which tend to be circumstantial arguments.
No, I just got into this conversation and I am giving you my opinion as of now.
I don't. I don't believe the Bible has any lies in it. However, people can be wrong about the Bible, or promote falsehoods in it's name.
I don't have any opinion about what "some here" may have said, so I certainly am not confused about it.
I don't get the reference, nor does your statement seem to be saying much of anything about what I've said.I remember Homer Simpson's attorney making that same argument in court in order to get Homer out of a Jam. It didn't work.
Not sa scientists, because that is not a scientific questions.
Science has no opinion whether the tomb was empty or not, or even if there was a tomb, or someone to put in it.
Science has no opinion about whether a miracle occurred or not.
This is a bit of a cop out, because atheists regularly prop up the success of science as evidence that the supernatural(aka miracles) aren't real. So while you're technically correct that "science" is properly silent on the matter, it appears to only be an admission in a technical sense rather than any sort of real recognition in most cases.
Hearsay and circumstantial are two vastly different things, hearsay is materially weak by definition. Circumstantial evidence is the kind of evidence that court cases and historical issues are decided on on a regular basis, and is not materially weak by definition.
If all you have are stories of miracles in a book, then you are on shaky ground as respects scientific evidence. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the some of the events recorded in the book as miraculous did not have natural causes, or didn't occur as recorded, or at all, for that matter.
