Where does big bang cosmology tells us that there was a point at which all of these did not exist?
You appear to have failed to notice that I did not claim it to be ‘scientific evidence’.
You appear to have failed to notice the title and topic of this thread.
I’m not sure what you mean by abductive evidence? The main thing I’m trying to do is point out that it’s confusing to make the blanket statement that there is no evidence for the supernatural. The way I see it, the only way that can be said is to clarify that statement with a distinction between direct and indirect empirical evidence.
So to say there is no direct empirical evidence for the supernatural would be correct. But without that distinction I would argue that it’s confusing and incorrect to say there isn’t any evidence for the supernatural.
The confusion comes from accepting as “evidence” empirical evidence that indirectly abductively infers a claim in science, and then implying that that same type of evidence doesn’t qualify as “evidence” when used in the same manner for a claim that is metaphysical in nature. Does that make sense?
You still haven’t explained how even your your indirect evidence shows evidence of the supernatural.
It sure points to it, deny it all you will: see big bang cosmology.
Aw, my bad.
OK, no worries.
So are you taking issue with my answer to this that I posted in the other thread where you quoted my original comment? Or have you not read what I wrote there yet?
That sentence sounds like one of those Atheist sound-bites. Atheists don’t use the word “evidence” like normal people.
Sure there is evidence… but when we start characterizing the kinds of evidence… things get complex.
For example, as a Unitarian Universalist, I am a big fan of kharma… and of survival of the soul after death. But NDE’s don’t confirm Biblical religion to the degree that they might for others. To me, they confirm SOMETHINGs … but not like they seem to for other folks…
You didn’t post an answer in the other thread or here. You seem to be dodging as hard as you can.
How are those things you listed scientific evidence for the supernatural as opposed to merely natural things we don’t fully understand yet?
If you have no answer just say so, don’t dodge.
I could be wrong, but the way I see it in an abductive argument whatever is the best explanation of the observations is what is being looked for. I would say that looking at all the observed data that a supernatural cause would definitely be in the running. Have I missed something?
Yes. Your evidence the observed data actually points to something supernatural as opposed to an unknown or not fully known natural cause.
The events themselves do, the reporter’s testimony is not anecdotal, and the events are consistent with the M.O. of the Perpetrator, if you are a forensic scientist.
You have no reporter’s testimony. Climbing the Empire State Building is the M.O. of King Kong but the Empire State Buildiing isn’t evidence King Kong actually existed.
It is the interpretation that you would object to.
Ok. I’m trying to keep up with all the posts. Please be patient. Now as I suggested to @T_aquaticus in an abductive argument a supernatural cause would be in the running as the best explanation for the evidence, especially since natural causes have a hard time explaining all of these things. Does that make sense?
Not for anyone’s personal beliefs. Only to offering that unsupported interpretation as indicative of reality everyone should accept.
The events happened were documented, and because you don’t believe in the Perpetrator does not change the facts of the events.
Objection your Honor! Assumes facts not in evidence.