Proof of the supernatural

[Bunyip]

Please see my thread on bias is not evidence.
Just because everything can be reasoned with a natural explanation or deemed that we don't have to have an answer, it does not mean the supernatural cant be true.
Its bias to claim otherwise.

Sure, but you called the thread PROOF of the supernatural. I think that most of us would agree that the supernatural could exist, and that your story is suggestive of the supernatural - what people are asking you to explain is how your anecdote is PROOF.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is exactly how I feel and since I witnessed it and other events, I have the stance that it has merit.
Other keep asking me why I am deeming the OP as such, but cant grasp what you said and I have tried to explain to them and they keep going back to claiming I am not explaining it to them.

But what did you really witness? You didn't say you watched an angel wave a magic wand over your friend while she was sleeping or the hand of God reaching down and pulling the balls out of the lottery machine. There's nothing in your story that DEMANDS a supernatural explanation.

 

[George-ananda]

But what did you really witness? You didn't say you watched an angel wave a magic wand over your friend while she was sleeping or the hand of God reaching down and pulling the balls out of the lottery machine. There's nothing in your story that DEMANDS a supernatural explanation.

If he did see 'an angel wave a magic wand over his friend while she was sleeping', even that would not DEMAND a supernatural explanation.

His point is you can always construct a natural explanation.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Please see my thread on bias is not evidence.
Just because everything can be reasoned with a natural explanation or deemed that we don't have to have an answer, it does not mean the supernatural cant be true.
Its bias to claim otherwise.

I didn't say it can't be possible. I said I find it more likely to be a natural cause and asked you to provide your proof that it is indeed, supernatural.

Also, I find this topic more interesting than a thread on bias, sorry! If this thread stays alive I'll most likely keep replying here.

But what did you really witness? You didn't say you watched an angel wave a magic wand over your friend while she was sleeping or the hand of God reaching down and pulling the balls out of the lottery machine. There's nothing in your story that DEMANDS a supernatural explanation.

When I read the 'god reach down and pull the balls' I thought your post was going in a completely different direction. :biglaugh:

Seriously though, that's exactly what I asked earlier. The OP witnessed something but has yet to demonstrate or even explain why he thinks it is proof of the supernatural.

Horsies, not Zebras

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

So, let me get this straight. God is able to provide middle-class Americans with winning lottery numbers and brand new washing machines, but food, clean drinking water, and cures for diseases in 3rd world countries is just too much trouble for him. Glad to see he's got his priorities in order.

 

[Sunstone]

His point is you can always construct a natural explanation.

Natural explanations that are falsifiable?

 

[George-ananda]

Natural explanations that are falsifiable?

Natural explanations for anecdotal events are not falsifiable.

Sorry, if I'm not grasping your point, please elaborate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If he did see 'an angel wave a magic wand over his friend while she was sleeping', even that would not DEMAND a supernatural explanation.

You're right - I suppose not. Still, it would be more compelling than the argument from ignorance we've been given.

His point is you can always construct a natural explanation.

This is also true. This means that any argument for the supernatural that's based on a "pigeon hole" approach of excluding all the natural explanations is doomed to fail. Instead, we have to consider the possibilities and weigh the likelihood of each. This means that the responsible supernatural advocates need actual evidence for the things that they argue.

 

[George-ananda]

You're right -

I don't think you've ever said that to me before.

This is also true. This means that any argument for the supernatural that's based on a "pigeon hole" approach of excluding all the natural explanations is doomed to fail.

WAIT......Who is excluding all natural explanations??? We consider all explanations natural and supernatural when considering likelihood.

Instead, we have to consider the possibilities and weigh the likelihood of each.

Now we're on the same track.

This means that the responsible supernatural advocates need actual evidence for the things that they argue.

Millions of events in the history of mankind is evidence for consideration in our likelihood deliberation.

 

[Iti oj]

I don't think you've ever said that to me before.





WAIT......Who is excluding all natural explanations??? We consider all explanations natural and supernatural when considering likelihood.



Now we're on the same track.



Millions of events in the history of mankind is evidence for consideration in our likelihood deliberation.

No I don't think so. No evidence that they happened let alone happened how the stories go.

 

[George-ananda]

No I don't think so. No evidence that they happened let alone happened how the stories go.

Again and again people misunderstand the difference between the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. Testimony of competent people is evidence.

 

[Iti oj]

Again and again people misunderstand the difference between the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. Testimony of competent people is evidence.

How do I verify the competency or truth fullness of those dread and gone?

 

[Iti oj]

Also proof is for math logic and alcohol

 

[George-ananda]

How do I verify the competency or truth fullness of those dread and gone?

They're not all dead

 

[George-ananda]

Also proof is for math logic and alcohol

That's about the way I see it too in these debates,

 

[Iti oj]

They're not all dead

Do that gives us a great place to start.

 

[Iti oj]

We need more than anecdotal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

WAIT......Who is excluding all natural explanations??? We consider all explanations natural and supernatural when considering likelihood.

The OP is, for one. The OP dismissed all natural causes as so unlikely that they could be disregarded. Any time we conclude a supernatural explanation without considering the relative probability of the possible explanations - which MUST include consideration of the likelihood of the supernatural explanation - we're excluding all natural causes.

You know that line from Sherlock Holmes that goes "when you eliminate the impossible, then whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth"? It only works when the things being eliminated are actually impossible, not merely unlikely. When we conclude that some explanation must be true because it's the only one left, then we're implicitly saying that all the other explanations are impossible... not merely improbable, but impossible.

Now we're on the same track.

Millions of events in the history of mankind is evidence for consideration in our likelihood deliberation.

IOW, bad evidence becomes good evidence if you have enough of it.

Edit: regardless, what do "millions of events in the history of mankind" have to say about this story? Even if supernatural forces exist, we still have natural explanations. People do win lotteries by chance. Lotteries have been rigged. People do sometimes lie.

 

[Alceste]

Again and again people misunderstand the difference between the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. Testimony of competent people is evidence.

Not necessarily. Human memory is notoriously inaccurate, however competent we are.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Again and again people misunderstand the difference between the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. Testimony of competent people is evidence.

Well when referring to the OP, how are we to know that he is a competent source? I know nothing about him other than what I've read here. There is no way to determine his level of credibility.