“ Originally Posted by jpappl
There is no proof for something supernatural. Otherwise it wouldn't be supernatural. ”
What is dishonest is you are asking for proof- knowing full well that whatever is presented you will reject- and then using mockery to state that it doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it.
How is asking for proof dishonest. If I said I know bigfoot exists would you believe me or want proof.
The problem is there is no proof or at least there is no proof yet. The other problem is that you want everyone to except as proof that which is not. So it's not a matter of mockery, it's a matter of getting those who believe to understand that reciting passages from your religious text does not suffice as evidence for others. If I wanted to believe and asked for evidence so that I could believe in it, that it was justified by your evidence, what you could offer would be completely inadequate.
So stop blaming the skeptics for the lack of evidence. It's not our claim nor is it our responsibility to come up with the proof for you.
“ The only thing that is dishonest is to keep claiming that the person who claims to know god exists doesn't have to provide proof. ”
No, to 'know' something does not require proof.... although you are asking for something you know you won't accept any proof for.
Yes you can know things that evidence would be impossible to provide however circumstances could easily change that. With a subject like god, you could have had an experience that tells YOU that you know but if there is no evidence for the experience how do you relay that to others.
“ If one wants to believe it himself and keep it to himself no problem. But when you state to others you KNOW, then proof please. That is the way it works. ”
Did you come up with the 'way it works'? Please provide proof that this is how it works.
Sure:
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established
