This is part of the debate section so providing an argument is usually seen as something nice to do. Seeing as how you apparently have some advantage over me in this, why don't you explain it instead of tell me to read the works of various people.
Why would I bother explaining anything to you? You have your own beliefs, you do not need my explanations. If you want my explanations I have already told you what to do.
I have provided the debate point, else you wouldn't be replying to me. You just don't accept it or believe it, that of course is up to you.
Proof? Reason? Evidence? Where are those things?
Yes where are those things Malleus, I look through your post here and see none of it from you, just your assertions and accusations. Do you often apply different rules for yourself than you do for others?
I will say it again, nothing is supernatural. Supernatural just means something we haven't the knowledge to explain yet. If it is possible to raise somebody from the dead one day we will have the knowledge to do this. If it is possible to walk on water one day we will have he knowledge to do this.
I'm pretty sure that the person with the username of footprints said "scientists deal with alleged supernatural and previously alleged untestable every day". But the next thing that this same person with this same username said was "the supernatural does not exist... Looks like I was wrong and you are still looking for supernatural excuses". That wouldn't make any sense, now would it? In fact, that'd be contradictory. But this same person continues and says "I have never met a scientist who studies the supernatural either..... I don't know how one could test for something unnatural, as it is your story perhaps you can tell me?". See, here's where I'm thinking this person has short-term memory loss because this person asserted something then they contradicted themselves then they said someone else asserted the thing, which that other person clearly didn't as the previous posts indicate.
You would be right there Malleus this is exactly what the person known as footprints did say.
The only thing that appears contradictory here to me is your comprehension. Albeit that is what happens when knowledge of reality is intermixed with a persons belief patterns.
What's really interesting though is this person... the username is footprints, which is exactly the one you have!
I'm telling this like a story because I'm wondering if you have short-term memory loss and maybe a nice chronological story can make things stick together easier.
I wouldn't say you have a memory loss, just your belief patterns interfering with reality.
Of course I could be wrong and your username isn't footprints, in which case I've humiliated myself but last I checked, that was your username.
No you would be right I do go by the name footprints, and about the only thing you have right so far.
Excellent, you've shown that things may or may not be created by a creator. Unfortunately, it's a pretty lame point because it's something that's already known and common-sense. Also, you didn't mention what can be made by a creator and what cannot, so the entire statement falls flat on its face.
Dear me, fancy being critised for applying common sense. My Bad.
You seem to understand the line of thinking of theists but not of scientists. When you say they're very much alike, I begin to wonder if you even understand the basics of science.
I cannot help your false belief.
You do? ... :no: you don't.
LOL
Let's think about this for a second, both from a scientific and from a theistic perspective. From a scientific perspective, you're asserting that all science is bogus because there must have been a point where most things were unknown to science. From a theistic perspective, a similar result occurs; you assert that discussing the unknown is useless, thus it stands to reason that since the various deities are unknown, then it's useless to discuss them. Nice to know you refuted both sides. For the scientific perspective, you're saying that computers are useless so tell me why they're used world-wide and why you're using one.
I know the obvious answer is that they're not useless but if you say that, you've contradicted yourself. Furthermore, if you favour theism, well, you just said it's useless. So going by this statement you made and no others, where do you fit?
You really do have a vivid imagination Malleus, I will give you that. Is that what your intelligence tells you that I believe all science is bogus? Hey I have bridge in Sydney that is for sale, they call it the Sydney Harbour Bridge, want to buy it LOL.
I do not favour theism and I do not favour atheism. Both are belief patterns. Both the atheist and the theist hold probability of being correct.
