Bias and logical fallacy.
No, it isn't. It isn't a fallacy to operate under the assumption that a person is wrong about something that is deemed highly unlikely to be true and has no good reason to be deemed true. I highly doubt that you believe every single unlikely claim made by everyone you have ever met.
The story is a fact, I was there, I would know.
Then please verify it.
Again, I am not saying that because I seen it, you should believe it.
That is on you to decide.
The supernatural is not only explanation, but to me, it is the most likely.
And that is your bias.
Coincidence does not wash.
How about just being wrong or mistaken?
You even said that the story is very unbelievable to you, so obviously you are choosing to not believe it over choosing it label it a coincidence.
Correct?
Yes.
It cant be unbelievable to me because I seen it with my own eyes and coincidence does not wash.
The more you keep asserting something, the more it sounds less like you are trying to convince anyone other than yourself. If you repeat a falsehood enough times, you will eventually be able to convince ever yourself. It is a quirk of the human brain. The point is that you're asserting something as a fact and saying it is true "because you say so", and then lamenting other people who do the same thing. Look at your words above, and compare them to your earlier statement:
"People here are guilty of making brute fact claims of the negative though with nothing more than "because I said so" as their justifications."
That is literally what you have just repeatedly done, asserting something as true with no justification for it other than your word; and while you appear to lament it in others, when you do the exact same thing yourself you seem upset at the notion that we shouldn't just take your word for it. This is an example of the bias I was talking about earlier.
Wrong, if someone told me a similar story, I would be open to all possibilities.
Just because it sounds unbelievable does not mean it is not true.
Where have I ever asserted otherwise, or said I wasn't open to the possibility of it being true?
People make claims of this sort of stuff all the time, are you not aware of this?
But we're not talking about "this sort of stuff", we're talking about your claim specifically. Right now you're committing your own logical fallacy.
So why is what other peoples support on what I said any more relevant?
Because I want to verify if the story you're telling actually happened. If I can't even verify that it happened, I have no good reason to assume that it's true.
Never the less, if I were able to produce every single person that knows of this story to you, what makes them any more believable than me?
Well, I could independently cross-reference their testimonies and see if they all match up. If lots of other people independently verify your claim, it makes it more reasonable to assume the claim is true. It would also allow me to hear about other factors that you may not have told me or be aware of that could have influenced the likelihood against your story being true.
Are you bias against me personally?
No. I would ask the same of anybody who made an extremely unlikely claim and didn't present any evidence for it.
Again, I am sure you heard stories of the supernatural like this before so I fail to see why you desire more people to show support for what I said.
Because we're not talking about "other stories of the supernatural", we're talking about
your story and trying to verify if
your story is true. It doesn't matter if other supernatural claims are true or not, or if aliens exist, or of there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - not a single one of them matters with relation to the truth of
your claim. Even if every single other supernatural story ever told were true,
that doesn't mean that yours must be true as well. Every claim stands on its own merits.
In short, you prob don't believe that Jesus preformed miracles and you have tons of text and accounts from others to ponder over.
That's for very different reasons. Also, I cannot verify any of their accounts.
But you will believe my account if I had more people to confirm it?
That depends entirely on what they tell me.
Its a very remarkable story, why are you nick picking my method of how I presented it?
Because I don't find a story remarkable if I don't think it is true, and you have given me no reason to think that it is.
How would you have presented it?
As an unexplained series of bizarre coincidences.
You are being quite unfair to me for not presenting it as you may have.
We have our own minds and methods of doing things.
And I happen to think that mine gives me a closer reading of reality. You think the same of your methods too, though you may not admit it.
But yah, if anything, please explain the "proper" method to describe this event if it happened to you exactly as I explained it happened to me, using your style.
What did I do wrong?
Presenting something as proof of the supernatural, then stating that you weren't trying to convince anyone. That's like me saying "I have proof that Jesus was a rabbit", and when people think my proof is poor, I turn around and say "It was just an idea, I wasn't trying to prove anything..."
