No worries about getting run over, HAL. My only concern (albeit slight) is getting talked
over, while he completely misses the point. See above posts for some examples.
Petey... it was never clearly established that natural explanations are better than supernatural by default.
Oh really? Show me one peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal that proposes a supernatural explanation to anything. I can list dozens of examples of formerly accepted supernatural explanations that have since been trumped by natural ones. Until you can demonstrate the explanatory power of the supernatural, the natural is indeed better by default.
Using your logic, then NO ONE can ever debate whether the supernatural can happen anywhere becaue you would have arbitarily defined the terms in the debate in such a manner that that no debate can exist.
There is nothing arbitrary about it (see above), and a debate can indeed take place. You seem to be under the impression that in order to have a debate, both sides need to bear equal burden of proof. This is simply not the case. The track record of natural explanations is pretty impeccable. If you want to debate in support of a supernatural explanation of anything, the onus is on you to show not only that your explanation better fits the "facts", but that no natural explanation is even plausible.
You can throw around semantics about "debating a question" until you're blue in the face, but nobody is buying into it. It's not our fault that you chose to represent a defendant with an extensive prior record, fingerprints on the murder weapon, DNA in and around the victim, multiple eyewitnesses, and no alibi. Given this analogy, it should surprise no one that your arguments sound very similar to those coming from an extremely "slippery" defense attorney.
To me, it seems you are guilty of the Persuasive Definition Fallacy or the Definist Fallacy. It appears that you are trying to win the argument by getting me to accept your faulty definition of terms like supernatural and natural. The fact is that the terms are never defined scientifically or in the dictionary as being mutually exclusive. No where in logic or science or philosophy or in the dictionary are the terms defined in such a way that states that both can't co-exist in our world.
More semantics, this time with definitions. Nobody ever said that they are mutually exclusive or could not co-exist. I think the whole point all along (that HAL has been trying to hammer through your cranium for months) is that until you (or anyone) can actually demonstrate
that the supernatural exists, it can effectively be dismissed as nonexistent. See my first paragraph in this post.
Also, people would have a lot more respect for you here if you simply addressed their points, rather than trying trying to shoehorn them into some type of logical fallacy. Any
argument can be dodged by logical fallacies, if you are inclined to go that route. However, this does absolutely nothing to move the debate forward. Your constant appeals to authority have been pointed out multiple times by multiple people, but has it changed your stance or tactics? Not one iota.
A skeptic's opinion that the supernatural does not exist is just that, an opinion... a philosophical opinion. It's not a scientific principle or a scientific law.
Again, see paragraph 1. It may not be a scientific law, but it is based on scientific track records of natural vs. supernatural.
Instead, what I have consistently maintained in this forum is that in the abscence of any persuasive evidence for a natural explanation... which is more reasonable than the evidence for the supernatural explanation... then the supernatural must be seriously considered. That is... if you are open-minded and objective... not closed minded and prejudiced against facts and evidence.
Like Flew... we must be brave enough to let the evidence lead us to where it will... not the other way around... which is what you are trying to do by arguing in circles/begging the question.
Yes Fran, skeptics are certainly in the habit of being prejudiced against facts and evidence.
It just so happens that the evidence leads us to a realization that your "facts" are not facts at all. It's that simple.
Why do I accept natural explanations for the hundreds of other resurrection claims throughout history, when supernatural ones better fit the facts? Well first off, I think you are vastly overstating the figure. There might be 100's of claims of people coming back from the dead throughout the history... but not so with Resurrection claims.
Secondly... i don't think in such cases, the supernatural claims fit the facts better.
Pure BS. You haven't reviewed a single other resurrection claim to even 1/10th the detail that you have with your pet case, and we both know it. You simply dismiss them out of hand as being myth, without looking at the actual "facts" of each case.
And thirdly... I think the case for the Resurrection hypothesis for Jesus is far more persuasive in terms of facts and evidences than any other claim that deals with a person rising from the dead. That is why I accept natural explanations for the hundreds of raising from the dead claims throughout history.
The Jesus story has nothing to do with other resurrection claims.