Originally posted by Proper Knobwhat elements? and why should the supernatural be viewed through the same prism as the natural, surely that its beyond what is natural makes it supernatural and it cannot be subject to the same treatment?
What about the other supernatural elements contained in the Bible? Any evidence for them?
Originally posted by Proper Knobbut people dont walk on water, there are only two recorded instance, Jesus and Peter, how is that a reference to people walking on water, dont be silly, people dont walk on water. Humans can turn water into wine but it takes the fermentation process, yeast, sugar, etc again you are not talking about people in general but a single recorded instance and Jesus was not just an ordinary human so your point, whatever it is, makes no sense. In fact its pure straw!
Have you any evidence that people can walk on water? That humans can turn water into wine?
17 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm merely trying to ascertain which bits of the Bible you have empirical evidence for and which bits you admit are religious beliefs.
but people dont walk on water, there are only two recorded instance, Jesus and Peter, how is that a reference to people walking on water, dont be silly, people dont walk on water.
What about Jesus existence, do you have any 'empirical evidence' for that?
It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.
Ouch that gotta hurt
http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes but that was not evidence for the supernatural, was it, it was evidence for the claims that the Bible had been fabricated, was mythological, had been changed, was unreliable, was uncorroborated etc etc etc making your approach, pure unadulterated double concentrated hyper straw!
Your own definition -
'As a man of science I must ask for evidence for I cannot feed my mind on unobserved phenomena.'
17 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieErmm, no it wasn't. Here's the exchange again.
yes but that was not evidence for the supernatural, was it, it was evidence for the claims that the Bible had been fabricated, was mythological, had been changed, was unreliable, was uncorroborated etc etc etc making your approach, pure unadulterated double concentrated hyper straw!
PK - I never claimed to be to offering anything. I asked what evidence would cause you to 'pause for thought' regarding the claims made about Jesus in the Bible?
You - As a man of science I must ask for evidence for I cannot feed my mind on unobserved phenomena.
Originally posted by Proper Knobok, then I have no evidence to offer for the supernatural, but then again, you have not nor can you provide any evidence to the contrary. For the third and last time, these remain a matter of religious belief. I would also like to point out that because I don't have empirical evidence does not mean that they did not actually happen.
Ermm, no it wasn't. Here's the exchange again.
PK - I never claimed to be to offering anything. I asked what evidence would cause you to 'pause for thought' regarding the [b]claims made about Jesus in the Bible?
You - As a man of science I must ask for evidence for I cannot feed my mind on unobserved phenomena.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have called this kind of apparently evidence-free conjecture or viewpoint a "mere self-certified opinion" in the past when talking to other posters. Would you apply the expression to yourself in this situation?
ok, then I have no evidence to offer for the supernatural, but then again, you have not nor can you provide any evidence to the contrary. For the third and last time, these remain a matter of religious belief.
17 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt seems quite contradictory that on the one hand here you are claiming to be unable to 'feed (your) mind on unobserved phenomena' yet you hold a plethora of religious beliefs which you admit don't hold up to your own statement.
ok, then I have no evidence to offer for the supernatural, but then again, you have not nor can you provide any evidence to the contrary. For the third and last time, these remain a matter of religious belief. I would also like to point out that because I don't have empirical evidence does not mean that they did not actually happen.