Same me. Do not expect me to believe, positive atheism is true, unless you provide solid evidence to back up this view.
What part of "I am not an atheist, let alone a strong atheist", are you having trouble understanding? I'm not making an argument for "positive atheism" in the first place, because you can't prove something doesn't exist. The burden of proof for proving that gods exist, and thus disproving atheism, rests on you and believers like you, not on atheists or skeptics. And, quite frankly, testimonials aren't going to cut it.
I met the challenge. I have provided the only possible evidence for a miracle. A testimony. Challenge met. If you do not believe it, i can provide you the contact information of the person in question, and its sister. They will confirm everything i said. Why do you believe they have interest to lie ?
Testimonials aren't evidence of anything except what someone believes to be true. Look up "confirmation bias", for example. People can and often do get fooled by what they expect to be true, even though it isn't actually true. Furthermore, there's no way that you can rule out a non-miraculous explanation with a testimonial. If you want to show that something is a miracle, explainable only by divine providence, then you have to be able to rule out every other possible cause for it. And testimonies can't do that, because they're based on a person's subjective perspective.
Argument from incredulity.
No, I'm suggesting alternatives to "your pastor had a vision from God". I'm not saying your explanation can't be true because it's incredible
, I'm saying that you have a very high standard of evidence to meet, and demonstrating why testimonial/anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it.
why should i ?
Because the human memory is not a video camera or a tape recorder. Every time a person remembers something, they change the memory. That's why they have to separate eyewitnesses so they can't compare notes, for example.
sure sure..... its however not so easy to spin a world view of pure naturalistic means. Try......
I'm honestly not sure why you included this. Spin, as I used it, means to provide an interpretation of an event in order to sway opinion.
The biggest miracle is a universe without a cause. If you claim that, your case is a lost case.
So, question for you. You believe that the universe was caused by your god; that is to say, your god caused it to come into existence. So, what caused your god to come into existence?
The narrative was about i miracle i presenced. Challenge met.
No offense, but this is one of the least miraculous 'miracles' I've ever heard of. I don't even define it as a commonplace "one in a million" miracle (which happens on average once a month to everyone), let alone a divine miracle. For one thing, based on your story, none of you actually questioned where he got his information from. You simply took him at his word that God gave him that vision right at that moment. Maybe it did happen that way, but I'd bet against it. For another, you're relying on eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously inaccurate (especially when the eyewitnesses talk to each other after the fact). There are other problems with it, but those will suffice for now.
Neither have i asked for that. You should read more carefully what i have asked for. Are you sure you understood it correctly ?
You're asking us to explain it. I can tell you right now that I can come up with several other explanations, none of which require the intervention of a supernatural deity. And you can't actually disprove those explanations satisfactorily, because you're relying on eyewitness testimony.
I do not have to prove anything. Evidence is enough. I have plenty of it. Do you have any to back up your world view ?
Well, let's see your evidence. Note that anecdotes don't cut it on their own.
Also, the point of atheism is that until something is shown to exist, there is no point to believing in it. If something doesn't exist, believing in it won't make it exist, and if something does exist, not believing in it won't make it go away. It's really that simple.
So where is your evidence for philosophical naturalism and positive atheism ? You cannot make a case on base of a negative.
Nor is he. The case for philosophical naturalism is that you can explain every event that happens without invoking something from 'outside' nature. That is to say, supernatural or divine. And your statement about positive atheism is based on your misunderstanding of it. Positive atheism does not say that it is impossible for gods to exist; it says that if gods existed, we would see evidence of them, and since we do not, they almost certainly do not exist. But that is not the same as saying they definitely do not exist.
This thread is strictly a challenge of miracles. I have presenced one, and narrated it. Challenge met. That does not say anything else about what evidence i have on hand for theism.
Again, no offense, but the event you reported was hardly miraculous, even by the definition of "a one in a million chance of it happening". There are numerous ways to explain it that don't require the intervention of a god. For example
, your pastor faked it - he researched your employee beforehand and presented it as if God were whispering it in his ear. Or
, your pastor was playing a confidence game - he asked leading questions and used his observations of your employee's reactions to determine if he was correct or not. Or
, he read about it some time before, forgot that he read it, and when you introduced the two of them to each other, he recalled it and mistakenly thought that God was giving him the information. Or
, you and your pastor had discussed it at some point previously, and either forgot that you had or intentionally planned it out to get him to convert to Christianity.
Testimonials have two serious flaws; they assume that the people testifying remember it with perfect accuracy, and they rely on the honesty of those testifying. Why do you think lawyers cross-examine someone testifying on the stand?