That's no fun (re: front-loading claims)

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...
So it's impossible to support or deny any supernatural event scientifically.

Well, that could be seen as a 'hasty generalisation' fallacy, but in practice, I agree - if there is in principle no way to support the hypothesis ('supernatural event') - or falsify it - then there is no reason to suppose it is valid (as per Russell - see my sig). That it could be applied to any unexplained event also means it is useless (meaningless?) as an explanation.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, that could be seen as a 'hasty generalisation' fallacy, but in practice, I agree - if there is in principle no way to support the hypothesis ('supernatural event') - or falsify it - then there is no reason to suppose it is valid (as per Russell - see my sig). That it could be applied to any unexplained event also means it is useless (meaningless?) as an explanation.

Strikingly similar to your post then.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Strikingly similar to your post then.

Not really.

 

[tas8831]

It's far more scientific than that. Nothing in science exists without confirmation.
If you claim anything is "supernatural" that means that you would not be able
to re-create the event. If you can't re-create an event then you have no evidence
to support your theory. Anything "supernatural" can only be taken on faith due
to the scientific method that requires reproducible evidence.

It's the scientific process that eliminates the scientific process from consideration.

Cool how you dutifully failed to even address what I wrote and instead concocted an escape clause.

Bravo.

 

[tas8831]

And a "supernatural event" is unpredictable, by definition.

Wow. Are you doing this on purpose?
The evidence that results from the event are what were being predicted, not the event itself.

 

[tas8831]

The supernatural never has been investigated successfully but that does not
define it as impossible.

Agreed, and what I mentioned is not an investigation of the supernatural as such, rather, and investigation of physical evidence following from the supernatural event.

 

[tas8831]

What I was explaining is that we don't know enough details to be able to predict such evidence.

Let me try again. "The whole world was covered with water."

So is that the whole known world for one person? We don't know.

More escape clauses.
Pity that your foundational beliefs can only stand when one makes numerous means by which to avoid any kind of confirmation/falsification.

 

[tas8831]

But God did not write one word of the Bible.
It was written by 40 authors.
Each author gives a different perspective inspired by God.

So why claim it is all true?

 

[SkyWriting]

So why claim it is all true?

How many of the 40 authors made that claim?

 

[SkyWriting]

More escape clauses.
Pity that your foundational beliefs can only stand when one makes numerous means by which to avoid any kind of confirmation/falsification.

In your imagination, have you documented my foundational beliefs? Seriously?
I'm guessing you haven't researched any of my past posts. Not a one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wow. Are you doing this on purpose?
The evidence that results from the event are what were being predicted, not the event itself.

You cannot predict the results. You can only predict the evidence from natural events.

Having made that argument, I believe all miracles are naturally engineered events. But that's just me.

 

[SkyWriting]

Cool how you dutifully failed to even address what I wrote and instead concocted an escape clause.

Bravo.

No, it's just logic. And I addressed your point, on point.

 

[Astrid]

I agree.

Of.
Id already agreed with you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of.
Id already agreed with you.

I agree

 

[tas8831]

What I was explaining is that we don't know enough details to be able to predict such evidence.

Let me try again. "The whole world was covered with water."

So is that the whole known world for one person? We don't know.

Laughably amazing escape clause for the literalist!
So you're ignoring biblical lore in order to lend credence to the same.
Awesome!

Now - isn't undercutting your preferred ancient beliefs much more satisfying that all the plagiarizing you used to do?
I know I enjoy your self-immolation more than your dishonesty.

 

[tas8831]

If you claim anything is "supernatural" that means that you would not be able
to re-create the event.

It is so cool how you first tried to avoid the inevitable by totally ignoring what I wrote and replying to the question that you had hoped I'd asked. Or you just can't understand the words used.

I told one of my classes the other day that the most points lost on the last exam were due to answering questions that I had not actually asked.

Same to you. ZERO points awarded.

 

[tas8831]

But as water does flow, it wont cover the highest
hills unless it finds its level everywhere.

Isn't apologetics amazing?

Trying to defend Genesis by implying that water covering the earth to its highest mountaintop maybe was not the same for all people...

 

[tas8831]

You should go by personal experience.
--Answered Prayer

Then there is no god. That is my personal experience.

 

[tas8831]

How many of the 40 authors made that claim?

Its the followers that do.. duh...

Now, I predict another cop-out of the form 'not all followers do...' or something. But AiG does. ICR does. The hypocrites at the DI do, even though they only admit this in 'safe spaces'. Kent Hovind does. Every "true" evangelical does.

 

[Astrid]

Isn't apologetics amazing?

Trying to defend Genesis by implying that water covering the earth to its highest mountaintop maybe was not the same for all people...

A " believer" is not the same as a " thinker".