The Supernatural exists

Thanks for the rebuttal, Con. However, I must say, the refutation was merely a confusion of the topic, and the words involved. Through Con's rebuttal, we can determine that Con has a fairly distinguishable lack of knowledge in the realm of science, as well. When it is said a supernatural thing is beyond the "observable" universe, this means observable by scientific means. In science, when something is observable, it means that it can be tested under the scientific method and other advanced methods of experimentation, under "controlled" tests. This means that whatever is "observable" is also Repeatable, testable , and verifiable by experimentation. To put it simply for Con,to scientifically observe ANYTHING, we must be able to REPRODUCE the occurance or a related occurance in a lab (under stringent control where outside variables can be eliminated ENTIRELY.) Even more simply put, it means...whatever we call "supernatural",,,,,by definition,,,, it is beyond SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. (NOT beyond your imagination.) This means Con cannot demand scientific proof, or even evidence, for things that are beyond our capacity to collect data. For example, Can Con generate scientific proof that the Holocaust happened? There is an overwhelming amount of individuals here and there, that argue the Holocaust never happened. SInce Con thinks, whatever cannot be scientifically proven, also cannot exist...then he must also assume the Holocaust never happened as well But lets cut to the meat of it all. my List. (as most of con's refutation is a strawman argument. As I clearly did not say or mean to say supernatural = your imagination. infact i intended to say the exact opposite. ) (1) Just because someone is unable to idently a flying object, does not mean it is of extraterrestrial origin, and even if it is, it is most likely a meteor. There is zero irrefutable proof of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting this planet. Even if there were proof of extraterrestrial visitors, they would not be supernatural, just more advanced. ---> All i said was UFO. Why do you , yourself jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth? UFOs are by definition supernatural. They don't need to be aliens. They can be angels. they can even be meteors, yet until you can conclude them to be so by SCIENCE, if they don't LOOK LIKE or APPEAR TO be a meteor,, we usually don't call it one. We call it a UFO. (2) Placebos are psychological, not supernatural. ---> Placebos are unexplained by science. You cannot demonstrate that it is purely psychological. This your assumption. Since its unexplained by science...how do you assume to say anything about it yourself? not even knowing how to conduct the crudest of experiments? Even if it IS merely psychological, until it is explained by science, it is defined as "supernatural." since is APPEARS TO DEFY (not actually defying) the LAWS OF NATURE. There is a subtle yet crucial difference between.. appearing to do something...and actually doing it. But neither of it denies the fact that it does happen. And no one can explain it. Placebo's exist. Placebos are supernatural, unless you can explain it scientifically. The supernatural exists. (3) The microphone in Peter Popoff's ear that enabled his wife to help him lie to hundreds of people was no miracle. There is zero evidence that faith healers ever actually healed anyone, and a great deal of evidence that they did not. In relative terms, many things medical science can do today would have been called a miracle a hundred years ago. In reference to the intervention of an omnipotent, omniscient being: That is a higher knowledge, which is not necessarily defined as "supernatural", anymore than what is done today could be called supernatural a hundred years ago. --> Just because one man is a charlatan, it doesnt make all men charlatans. Just because MOST if not 99.9999999999% of all the true explanations turn out they are lies,,,doesn't make 100% lies. ITs a slippery slope and a false generalization to say because Peter Popoff is a liar, so is Ghandi, Jesus or Buddha. Each case needs to be taken and scrutinized on a case by case basis. The rarity of each occasion doesn't grant one to paint a broad brush over each and everyone of them and deem all of them "FAKE." without properly looking at the evidence for each out. It's therefore fallacious to claim similar to proclaiming Michael Jackson was allegedly touching kids, we need to stay away from all singers. (4) Ghosts make no logical sense. Biblically speaking, ghosts are extremely rare, and do not haunt; hauntings do not exist in the Bible. Scientifically speaking, there is zero irrefutable evidence of hauntings. Moreover, it would be illogical for ghosts to wear clothing; the clothing does not possess a spirit, and yet nearly every alleged ghost is said to be clothed for their time in history. Then there is Marilyn Monroe who died in the nude. Whatever unsupported excuse folks make for ghosts being clothed cannot be applied to her, and yet she is clothed according to all who claim to have seen her ghost. One self-proclaimed medium saw Marilyn's ghost in a sexy pink outfit. [3] --> plenty evidences of ghosts. Same fallacy as above. Giving an off-hand example of one out of the millions of reported sightings and video footage, then saying since that was faulty,, they are all faulty is a fallacy. The only justification that Con can present for not looking at evidence, is that "he's seen it all before." This is an epitomized display of ignorance. (5) Pyramids are architectural, not supernatural. All supernatural qualities attributed to them are nonsense. [4] --> Scientifically unexplained. Therefore supernatrual. Exists. therefore supernatural exists. Attributing additional qualities is not necessary, because there existence itself is a known as "world wonder." They are KNOWN to be of mysterious origin, for which science has no valid account, therefore "supernatural." And existing. (6) The narratives vary too greatly to be accepted as truth. As for death itself, there is nothing supernatural about it. ---> http://listverse.com... According to the article above. What Con is saying is simply not true. All the narratives are eerily consistent. Which actually touted as the MOST CONVINCING reason for NDEs. The accounts of adults and children under 5 (who have no idea of Jesus or heaven.) all describe similar accoutns. If they didnt... NDEs would not be the hot topic that it is. To say that they "vary." is simple simpleton denial. Here is also additional evidence to suggest an afterlife exists: http://www.independent.co.uk... Since now there is scientific evidence, does my opponent change his position? or is he in denial? or ignorance? Any refutation to follow would certainly demonstrate his inclinations for us. (7) Religiously speaking, prophecies are highly controversial. As they apply to Nostradamus and the like, they are pure nonsense. [5] ---> Con has agreed prophecies are supernatural by failing to provide a scientific explanation for them. Prophecies exist. Supernatural things exist. (8) See response to paragraph 5. ----> (Paragraph 5) To say that the Bermuda Triangle has no scientific explanation is untrue. There are a number of scientific, viable explanations for disappearing ships and planes in that area. [2] Ships, planes, cars, people, etc, disappear consistently all over the earth. Out of millions of flights, sailing excursions, car trips, mountain hikes, etc, there are bound to be a great many disappearances. In fact, very few unexplained disappearances would be much stranger than many disappearances. --------> I have seen paragraph 5, and found that is absent of any content. There is no scientific explanation for why the Bermuda Triangle exists. Though con would assert (without evidence) there is. He admits it exists. If I can prove there is no scientific explanation for it, then it is defined as being supernatural. Science cannot determine an explanation for the Bermuda Triangle, because it cannot reproduce the events that led to the disappearance of the planes. A scientific explanation is virtually impossible. Science would need to recreate the event, in order to justifiably determine, what happened. Having a number of possible theories, is NOT having a scientific explanation. Just because it is "atheistic." by its explanation, does NOT make it scientific. A scientific explanation is one that includes observations, tests and trials. Elementary my dear Watson. (Though I bet this flies over 90% of yalls heads WOOSH~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) Therefore the supernatural does exists. (9) Oswald did not cast magic spells on his bullets. [6] --> Then how did Oswald manage to leave multiple bullet holes coming from different angles ? ARE YOU IMPLYING MULTIPLE SHOOTERS???? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE FOR THIS? IF not, then certainly and justifiably by Con's own standards... multiple shooters cannot exist. Even if they did, we would need scientific evidence to prove this. Until then I guess we must remain IGNORANT? (10) Controversial. Indeed. _ ig"no"rant G2;iɡnərənt/ adjective lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. "he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid" synonyms:uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular. "they were ignorant of astronomy" synonyms:without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about,