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

I wish to thank Eros for his quick response. Many things in your last round are orthogonal to the issue at hand, so forgive me if I ignore some of them. It is quite clear that all of the assertions put forth by Eros either rely on invalid inductive arguments or Base rate fallacies. [1] He uses weak evidence to make probability judgments without taking into account the importance of verified empirical statistics. However, these arguments still need to be dealt with on their own merits. *Case Con: Rebuttals* ========= Contention 1: Ancient civilizations were given information/technology from supernatural powers. ========= "Evidence that would qualify under part D1.b.) is a bias relief from a Mayan tomb that indicates advanced technology..." Even if I were to grant the primary claims of this argument the conclusion would not follow. Therefore, it is a non sequitur. [2] You simply can't logically deduce a supernatural explanation from a set of natural phenomena. [3]-[4] And since valid conclusions cannot be drawn from an invalid argument this entire resolution is utterly hopeless. [5] Moreover, supernatural explanations are not only unnecessary; they are unwarranted by virtue of the existence of more plausible natural explanations. Secondly, you need to be specific when you make claims like this. What "advanced technology" are you referring to? Up until this point you don't even have a real argument. ========= Contention 2: Personal experiences can validate paranormal activity. ========= "Evidence that would qualify under part D1.c.) contains not only the individuals who claim spiritual experiences but also the many videos of paranormal events now on the web." Videos of supposed parnormal events on the Internet do not qualify as evidence for the supernatural. Moreover, people who claim to have spiritual experiences are not to be trusted unless they can produce evidence for these claims. Although you have not argued this, it is important that I point out some things regarding logical fallacies. The sheer number of people that make extraordinary claims does not indicate the existence of the supernatural. [6] ========= Contention 3: The book of Genesis must have been the product of a supernatural intelligence. ========= "Evidence that would qualify under part D1.d.) is Genesis 1 with its account of the Earth's development. The order of events described there follow the order that we are taught today." This claim is so specious that it can be dismissed out of hand. However, I will point out a few things before I go any farther. The development of our Earth is no way congruous with the account of creation given in Genesis. Our universe has evolved slowly over billions of years. [7]-[8] Likewise, the development and emergence of living organisms have also taken billions of years. Humans and all other species of animals exist on a continuum with the rest of the animal kingdom. [9]-[10]-[11] The fact of the matter is that there is not a single verse in the book of Genesis that couldn't have been written by a denizen of the ancient world. ========= Contention 4: Occam's razor validates supernatural explanations. ========= "I hold that a super-ordinary agent providing the information to ancient, primitive people as the simplest explanation." My opponent seems to have a slightly skewed understanding of what constitutes simplicity in an explanation. Consequently, he has failed to understand the implausibility of his own views. Supernatural forces are in no way a simple explanation for anything because they violate the principle of parsimony. [12] All we know about are natural explanations. Therefore, to postulate supernatural forces would require us to invoke unverified phenomena. Indeed, if we were to postulate supernatural explanations for any event we would have to square the laws of biology, chemistry, physics, history and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a torrent of unprovable and unverified phenomena. Therefore, supernatural elements are not simple explanations because their veracity has not been established. ======== Conclusion ======== My opponent's assertions haven't gotten past the initial stages of reliance on fallacious reasoning. On top of this, he doesn't even have an actual argument. He claims that the Mayans had advanced technology without explaining what this supposed technology was. Moreover, he still hasn't even defined what supernatural actors he claims exist. Therefore, the resolution before us remains firmly negated. ---References--- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [7] http://www.talkorigins.org... [8] http://books.google.com... [9] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [10] http://www.talkorigins.org... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://plato.stanford.edu...