There is sufficient evidence for the existence of super-ordinary actors on Earth.

However, I still take issue with much of what you have written. For example, you wrote the following: "In this debate I was making no attempt to establish the "veracity" of a Supernatural Theory. .. What I am promoting is that there is certain evidence lacking conventional scientific explanation that would be better explained by one of these theses. " You have unknowingly admitted to the fact that all of your arguments consist of nothing more than appeals to ignorance. [1] You simply want to explain whatever hasn't been understood scientifically with paranormal explanations. Consequently, your approach is booth unscientific and poorly rooted in logic. *Case Con: Rebuttals* ========= Contention 1: Ancient civilizations were given information/technology from supernatural powers. ========= "I made no claim that the Mayans had advanced technology. I was claiming that they had witnessed such. " People's claim to have witnessed supernatural events cannot be taken seriously unless their claims are backed up by sufficient evidence. Moreover, citing the ancient Mayans as an authority to establish the existence of the supernatural is a fallacious appeal to an unqualified authority. [2] The testimony of others cannot be used to validate the existence of the supernatural because the probability that they are mistaken is always greater than the probability that the laws of nature have been abrogated. [3]-[4] Therefore, the possibility that they were either deluded or lying is always a simpler explanation than a supernatural one. Consider for a moment the sheer number of different religions there have been in the world. [5] They simply can't all be correct. Therefore, no matter how you look at it most of the people on the planet are deluded. For example, many of the people in these religions claim to have witnessed miracles. Millions of people believe that Sathya sai baba, the south Indian guru, is a living God. He has been claimed, by his followers, to have raised the dead, materialize objects and he even claims to have been born of a virgin- which isn't all that unique in the history of religion or in history generally. [6] Perhaps you should organize your life around his teachings because there are literally tens of thousands of living eyewitnesses who regard him as a living God and believe in his "miracles". It should therefore be obvious that hearsay is insufficient evidence to validate the truth of miracles. ========= Contention 2: Personal experiences can validate paranormal activity. ========= Eros has dropped his assertions regarding spiritual experiences. Likewise, he has not responded to my criticism regarding the veracity of Internet videos claiming to demonstrate paranormal activity. Allow my previous rebuttals to carry over. ========= Contention 3: The book of Genesis must have been the product of a supernatural intelligence. ========= "What I provided was that the book of Genesis 1 contains information an ancient person couldn't have dreamed up…. He does not offer any alternate explanation how his "denizen" could have known that there was an order to the development. " Quite frankly, I don't even know what you're talking about. The authors of Genesis didn't write even a single sentence that is salient with our modern understanding of cosmology. They couldn't even keep their own story straight. There are two contradictory stories of creation in the book of Genesis. [7] In order to compensate for these facts you simply try to cloak the Bible's words behind a barricade of metaphor and poetry. I've seen this all before and I'm just as unimpressed by it now as I was when I was five. Anyone without an education and an active imagination could have created Genesis. There is nothing profound about it in the slightest. ========= Contention 4: Occam's razor validates supernatural explanations. ========= "In conclusion, Freeman's refutation amounts to heuristic generalizations of why we cannot think in a certain way. " Certain ways of thinking are indeed fallacious, as you have helped demonstrate throughout this debate. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid fallacious reasoning if you want to be considered rational. Moreover, you have completely dropped my arguments regarding the principle of parsimony. Indeed, you seem to have misunderstood what constitutes simplicity in a very fundamental way. ======== Conclusion ======== My opponent has not provided a shred of evidence whatsoever in favor of the resolution. He merely claims that supernatural explanations are warranted to fill our missing gaps of knowledge. In doing this he relies on nothing more than appeals to ignorance. This is an unscientific way of trying to understand the world. Moreover, he has dropped my central argument regarding ontological parsimony. I've explained why supernatural explanations are unwarranted and he has had virtually nothing to say in response. Furthermore, instead of giving "sufficient evidence" for the supernatural, Eros has given no evidence and has propelled his arguments on nothing more than fallacies. For these reasons and many more I strongly encourage everyone to stand in opposition to this resolution. (Vote Con) ---References--- [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://www.religioustolerance.org... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com... Good Luck