Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

So do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? Or not? No. In this thread we are talking about the "actual critter(s)". Specifically as explanations for known phenomenon. Known phenomenon such as human myths and stories. Well I would say nothing. I would say that myths and stories are evidence of human belief in the supernatural. Nothing more.It is you who seems to be citing myths and stories as evidence of the the actual existence of the supernatural. Is that evidence in the gods themselves? Or simply belief? Please be explicit. Obviously. But are they indicative of the actual existence of the supernatural? That is the question here.

Why do you insist on talking in ambiguous riddles and then getting all haughty when any attempt to pin you down to a position is made?Why not just answer the question — Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way?Just a yes or no will do. If you feel the need to explain your answer then do. But please make it clear and unambiguous what that answer is first. You used them like this: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Message 329Now it seems a little hypocritical for you to be berating Buz for suggesting that the origins of the universe require a supernatural explanation when you yourself are advocating the supernatural as a viable explanation for the existence of certain myths and stories. What is the difference? As does Buz’s supernatural explanation for the origins of the universe.
As does Kermit the Frog. Message 174
So what?

Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? Or not? You said: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Message 329How can the myths and stories be evidence of gods/Gods unless you are advocating a causal relationship between the two?

Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? Or not?You said: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Message 329How can the myths and stories be evidence of gods/Gods unless you are advocating a causal relationship between the two? The evasion continues.Why? Why are you telling me to look-up your personal definitions when you could just explicitly tell us whether or not you consider there to be a causal relationship between the existence of the supernatural and myths and stories pertaining to such?Why do you feel the need to talk in ambiguous riddles rather than state a position?How is Buz's (much derided) advocacy of the supernatural in relation to the origin of the universe any different to your advocacy of the supernatural with regard to myths and stories?You are being hypocritical and contradictory.

Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? Or not? An explicit and non-evasory answer to that question would help a great deal. But nor does your own explanation for the existence of myths and stories pertaining to the supernatural: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Message 329.How is that conclusion more evidenced than Buz's conclusion?Be specific.

Does the universe exist?Obviously both the universe, and the stories you are citing as evidence of the supernatural, both exist. But so what? In neither case do we need to resort to invoking the supernatural as a cause of these phenomenon.Your position regarding supernatural involvement as leading to the existence of certain stories is just as evidentially unjustified as Buz's nonsense.The primary difference is that you are significantly better at making yourself sound reasonable than he is.

You must have me confused with someone else.It is jar who is citing myths and stories as evidence of the supernatural.Not I.

Up and down thread from this Message 329Jar talks in riddles and euphemisms. He simply won't give a direct and straight answer to the following question which I have asked multiple times:Question: Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? Or not?He seems to want to maintain a facade of extreme reasonableness and explicitly saying that the supernatural is evidenced wouldn't really fit in with that. He has cited the myths and stories pertaining to gods as evidence of gods. jar says: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves[/b]. Message 329.What he seems to fail to appreciate is that by citing such stories as evidence of gods he is implicitly and necessarily advocating a causal relationship between the two. These stories cannot very well be evidence of said gods if the existence of these gods has absolutely no bearing on the stories in question.Whether he accepts it or not he is essentially advocating the supernatural hypothesis as an explanation for the existence of certain myths. Which if taken to it's logical conclusion amounts to nothing more than citing personal conviction as evidence in itself. The circular argument of citing belief itself as evidence upon which to justify belief.

The only thing I am "confused" by is jar's refusal to clearly state whether or not he considers these cultural constructs to be evidence of the supernatural.

Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? Or not?

Well Buz what tests would you have us undertake?Be specific.

Well that isn't entirely true now is it? You previously clearly stated that you consider it the rational and logical conclusion to deem the actual existence of any unevidenced entity to be "highly improbable" Message 317 and Message 321And yet when I asked you in that same thread: You replied: You then went on to say: So these Gods that are evidenced by stories - Are they not supernatural? If they are supernatural how on Earth are you now claiming to have never suggested that the supernatural is evidenced? OK. Fine. But at the end of that I would lie to unequivocally know what your position is regarding the following:A) Is the supernatural evidenced in any way?B) Is the existence of that which is entirely un-evidenced "highly improbable"?Without the careful wording, ambiguity and seeming contradictions that have been the hallmark of your contributions on this so far.Where do you want to start?

Obviously the stories exist. OK. Then we have evidence that people believe in the supernatural.
Nobody is going to disagree with that.

Often. Yes.But probably more "often" the belief in the validity of those stories is essentially due to what one has been raised to believe as true.Whether this matters to your point or not I don't know. But it is worth highlighting. Yep.

Then it might help if he said that mightn't it? Well let's see where he goes with his step by step analysis. By the end of that we should have a clear and unequivocal idea of what jar's position is regarding what he means by these terms and what his position is on the following:A) Is the supernatural evidenced in any way?B) Is the existence of that which is entirely un-evidenced "highly improbable"?