Does Science/Statistics Prove a Supernatural Intervention?

[painted wolf]

Yeah, but that's only because we haven't determined what the criteria for evidence is in the case of the supernatural. The evidence for the supernatural is infinitely stronger than the evidence for God.

Those two sentences contradict one another.
If we don't know what the evidence for the supernatural is... how can the evidence for the supernatural be "infinitely stronger" than the evidence for God?

Especially when the evidence for both is essentially identical?

wa:do

 

[Skeptisch]

So since the odds for our individual existence are effectively zero, does that mean that other, potentially supernatural, forces were acting on our behalf???

Why not just enjoy the ride in the real world while it lasts and acknowledge that there are laws of nature that can not be altered and that there is no evidence of a supernatural agent anywhere in the universe:

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."
RD

 

[brbubba]

Those two sentences contradict one another.
If we don't know what the evidence for the supernatural is... how can the evidence for the supernatural be "infinitely stronger" than the evidence for God?

Especially when the evidence for both is essentially identical?

wa:do

The scientific community doesn't have a criteria, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence. Not contradictory.

The evidence isn't identical because I don't think any "evidence" of God exists at all.

 

[painted wolf]

The scientific community doesn't have a criteria, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence. Not contradictory.

Just like with God....

The evidence isn't identical because I don't think any "evidence" of God exists at all.

The same sort of anecdotal personal experience exists for people who believe in God. People claim to see and hear ghosts... people also claim to see and hear God. People believe that places are haunted, people believe that places are holy.
And so on and so forth. The evidence is almost exactly the same from one to another.

How do you accept the evidence of one supernatural event but dismiss another?

wa:do

wa:do

 

[brbubba]

The same sort of anecdotal personal experience exists for people who believe in God. People claim to see and hear ghosts... people also claim to see and hear God. People believe that places are haunted, people believe that places are holy.
And so on and so forth. The evidence is almost exactly the same from one to another.

How do you accept the evidence of one supernatural event but dismiss another?

You're completely ignoring photographic, audio, video, etc. evidence of supernatural phenomenon. We don't have any of that with respect to God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're completely ignoring photographic, audio, video, etc. evidence of supernatural phenomenon. We don't have any of that with respect to God.

We don't? Some people would claim that there's even physical evidence for God.

I grew up two doors down from a place they called the "miracle house". The family that lived there claimed to have a picture of the Virgin Mary that would sweat.

 

[Skwim]

You're completely ignoring photographic, audio, video, etc. evidence of supernatural phenomenon.

Ah, yes.

[youtube]rZjxmGxNuz8[/youtube]
​

 

[Skeptisch]

You're completely ignoring photographic, audio, video, etc. evidence of supernatural phenomenon.

What are you talking about? Are you sure you are a pantheist? Even a classic one?

 

[justbehappy]

Well if time is infinite then the probability of God is 1. However, the probability of all things is 1. But then you have to obey the laws of the universe, but we also don't know all the laws of the universe. So it's clearly a complex problem.

I'd say they're both just as likely.
Hince, Agnosticism

 

[brbubba]

We don't? Some people would claim that there's even physical evidence for God.

I grew up two doors down from a place they called the "miracle house". The family that lived there claimed to have a picture of the Virgin Mary that would sweat.

But that's anecdotal evidence. Also even if the picture could be proven to sweat there's no direct proof or correlation to God. Even if Jesus walked into my house right now, that's not direct proof of God!!!

What are you talking about? Are you sure you are a pantheist? Even a classic one?

Go check out our little debate, Can you be a pantheist and an atheist?, over in the Pantheist forum.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that's anecdotal evidence.

Of course... but the key word there is "evidence".

Also even if the picture could be proven to sweat there's no direct proof or correlation to God. Even if Jesus walked into my house right now, that's not direct proof of God!!!

No, not proof, but it would be evidence.

Okay... to approach this another way, you said that there's evidence for the supernatural. What evidence? What's your standard there?

IMO, wherever you set the bar, if it's low enough that you admit at least some evidence of the supernatural, then it's also low enough to let some evidence for God through as well. I just don't get the distinction you're making between the two.

 

[brbubba]

Of course... but the key word there is "evidence".

No, not proof, but it would be evidence.

Okay... to approach this another way, you said that there's evidence for the supernatural. What evidence? What's your standard there?

IMO, wherever you set the bar, if it's low enough that you admit at least some evidence of the supernatural, then it's also low enough to let some evidence for God through as well. I just don't get the distinction you're making between the two.

How many times do I have to say it, photographic, video, audio. All of which can be verified to have been obtained credibly or without forgery.

Also what did I say before, a sweating picture of the virgin mary has no correlation to God!!!! Think about it, I'm just trying to prove that the supernatural exists. How would you even get evidence that God exists?

 

[painted wolf]

There is no evidence of the supernatural that can be verified as such...

wa:do

 

[PolyHedral]

How many times do I have to say it, photographic, video, audio. All of which can be verified to have been obtained credibly or without forgery.

That'd be impressive. Tell me, is this a real photo?

 

[Smoke]

Good question. The probability of God vs. chance given the properties of our universe has been enough to convince even such notable atheists as Athony Flew, but I am still on the fence.

Anthony Flew's "conversion" to deism seems to have resulted from things other than probability -- mainly, his deteriorating mental capacity and the mendacity of his Christian friends.

 

[Smoke]

Yeah, but that's only because we haven't determined what the criteria for evidence is in the case of the supernatural. The evidence for the supernatural is infinitely stronger than the evidence for God.

Don't we have to know what the criteria of evidence of the supernatural are, and what the criteria of evidence of God are, before we can possibly know whether the evidence for one is stronger than the evidence for the other?

 

[Skeptisch]

How many times do I have to say it, photographic, video, audio.

:magic:

 

[Skeptisch]

Also what did I say before...

:camp:

 

[brbubba]

There is no evidence of the supernatural that can be verified as such...

wa:do

There's plenty of evidence! Even those dumb ghost hunter shows have plenty of evidence. The point being, if you look for it, it's there. Science however reasons that the burden of proof is above and beyond photographic or video evidence. Their more interested in first proving that the supernatural exists at all.

That'd be impressive. Tell me, is this a real photo?

No, the glass is too perfect.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There's plenty of evidence! Even those dumb ghost hunter shows have plenty of evidence.

Not really. Even the best and most honest ghost-hunters have produced absolutely nothing in terms of verifiable or remotely compelling.

The point being, if you look for it, it's there. Science however reasons that the burden of proof is above and beyond photographic or video evidence. Their more interested in first proving that the supernatural exists at all.

Science is the study of the natural, so in what way can science be used to demonstrate or prove the existence of the supernatural?