Is there any type of physical evidence that could occur which would convince those of you who are atheists to suddenly believe in a God?

Possible evidence includes a person or people:

1) Raising someone else from the dead
2) Walking on water
3) Turning 7 loaves of bread into hundreds of pounds of bread
4) Turning water into wine
5) Making a person born blind see again
6) Making a person paralyzed from the neck down for years suddenly walk again
7) Walking around healing masses of people by simply touching them
8) Healing people with diseases which clearly have no cure
9) Turn a staff of wood into a snake by throwing it on the ground
10) Parting an entire sea
etc.

Evidence also includes:

1) Giant formed pillar of cloud or fire
2) A burning bush which never is consumed and which speaks in an audible voice
etc.

Is there any type of physical evidence which would convince those of you who are atheists to suddenly believe in a God?

Possible evidence includes a person or people:

1) Raising someone else from the dead
2) Walking on water
3) Turning 7 loaves of bread into hundreds of pounds of bread
4) Turning water into wine
5) Making a person born blind see again
6) Making a person paralyzed from the neck down for years suddenly walk again
7) Walking around healing masses of people by simply touching them
8) Healing people with diseases which clearly have no cure
9) Turn a staff of wood into a snake by throwing it on the ground
10) Parting an entire sea
etc.

Evidence also includes:

1) Giant formed pillar of cloud or fire
2) A burning bush which never is consumed and which speaks in an audible voice
etc.

Firstly, none of the above.

Secondly, for your question to make any sense whatsoever, you first need to define what it is you mean by the term"God".

Is there any type of physical evidence which would convince those of you who are atheists to suddenly believe in a God?
I think most atheists have just made up their minds to never believe in any type of God or anything supernatural....


Possible evidence includes a person or people:

1) Raising someone else from the dead
2) Walking on water
3) Turning 7 loaves of bread into hundreds of pounds of bread
4) Turning water into wine
5) Making a person born blind see again
6) Making a person paralyzed from the neck down for years suddenly walk again
7) Walking around healing masses of people by simply touching them
8) Healing people with diseases which clearly have no cure
9) Turn a staff of wood into a snake by throwing it on the ground
10) Parting an entire sea
etc.
Thats the evidence you need? Those things are simple iddhi/siddhi powers used by Gautama Buddha, Jesus, and others....they're technically attainable by anyone, you don't even have to be enlightened....

Also even if these things were clearly demonstrated you would hear great explanations by atheists about how these things are either natural occurences, coincidences, or magic tricks...they'll try anything to deny evidence

I think most atheists have just made up their minds to never believe in any type of God or anything supernatural....


Incorrect.
We've made up our minds to use our minds.



Also even if these things were clearly demonstrated you would hear great explanations by atheists about how these things are either natural occurences, coincidences, or magic tricks...they'll try anything to deny evidence My emphasis.

Deny evidence? No.
Determine whether or not it is evidence? Yes.

Notice your usage of the word 'explanation'.
Of course we seek to explain such odd occurrences: it's called science.

Incorrect.
We've made up our minds to use our minds.

Yeah whatever you're saying the samething...atheists have made up their minds to not believe in God no matter what....


My emphasis.

Deny evidence? No.
Determine whether or not it is evidence? Yes.

Notice your usage of the word 'explanation'.
Of course we seek to explain such odd occurrences: it's called science.
Its the same as denying evidence...atheists would insist no matter what, even if such things are demonstrated that they must be natural occurences, magic tricks, coincidences, etc....anything to make the evidence fit into atheism...

Yeah whatever you're saying the samething...atheists have made up their minds to not believe in God no matter what....

Actually, it's not even remotely the same thing.
Have you made up your mind to not believe in the Easter Bunny??


Its the same as denying evidence...atheists would insist no matter what, even if such things are demonstrated that they must be natural occurences, magic tricks, coincidences, etc....anything to make the evidence fit into atheism...

Again, it's not even remotely the same.
Analyzing an event and determining how it fits into an explanatory model is exactly, and only that. It is anything but denial. You do at least understand that the fact that you currently enjoy the ability to interact on this forum is entirely due to the fact that we have developed a scientific explanation for electricity? As opposed to saying, 'Oooh, ahh... it's a god being angry!'.

I refer you to Ockham's Razor.

Actually, it's not even remotely the same thing.
Have you made up your mind to not believe in the Easter Bunny??
Oh come on an intelligent cause behind reality is incomparable to the Easter Bunny...you might as well say that believing in the big bang theory or the superstring theory is the same as making up your mind to believe in the Easter Bunny....


Again, it's not even remotely the same.
Analyzing an event and determining how it fits into an explanatory model is exactly, and only that. It is anything but denial. You do at least understand that the fact that you currently enjoy the ability to interact on this forum is entirely due to the fact that we have developed a scientific explanation for electricity? As opposed to saying, 'Oooh, ahh... it's a god being angry!'.

I refer you to Ockham's Razor.
Well it is remotely the same. The reason its nearly the same as denying evidence is because atheists will look to explain anything supernatural as something else, no matter what, thereby making it completely different from a scientific explanation of electricity....

So no matter what miraculous feats are demonstrated atheists will dismiss it as something like a natural occurence, coinicidence, magic trick, etc...just for the purpose of dismissing it as anything supernatural.....

The conclusion is inevitable...atheism is a faith based system where in atheist use blind atheistic faith to preserve their beliefs....

Firstly, none of the above.

If someone parted an entire sea, you wouldn't be impressed? Interesting.

Secondly, for your question to make any sense whatsoever, you first need to define what it is you mean by the term"God".

God = Supernatural being with immense power unimaginable by humans

If someone parted an entire sea, you wouldn't be impressed? Interesting.
Atheists and skeptics wouldn't be impressed they'd say it was some type of natural weather occurence...nothing at all supernatural....


God = Supernatural being with immense power unimaginable by humans
Well by this definition Gautama Buddha believed in God...since he believed in ghosts, spirits, devas, and brahma (the creator/maker), supernatural powers, etc....

Oh come on an intelligent cause behind reality is incomparable to the Easter Bunny...you might as well say that believing in the big bang theory or the superstring theory is the same as making up your mind to believe in the Easter Bunny....

Not at all.
Both Big Bang and any Superstring theory are firmly supported logically within their respective scientific models.
Both god, and the Easter Bunny, are not.



Well it is remotely the same. The reason its nearly the same as denying evidence is because atheists will look to explain anything supernatural as something else, no matter what, thereby making it completely different from a scientific explanation of electricity....


Sorry, you simply don't understand logic.
'Looking to explain' is how we survive and thrive. It's not unreasonable to apply this methodology. And if that methodology was never applied to observed electrical activity, it would have remained 'supernatural.
Again, check out Ockham.



So no matter what miraculous feats are demonstrated atheists will dismiss it as something like a natural occurence, coinicdence, magic trick, etc...just for the purpose of dismissing it as anything supernatural...

Wrong.
They will be determined to be natural for the purpose of understanding them. As opposed to your position, which would have us stand around slack-jawed in awe of the simplest phenomenae.

p.s.: "miraculous" conjoined with "demonstrated", is contradictory.

If someone parted an entire sea, you wouldn't be impressed? Interesting.

Nope.

Could be done quite handily.

It's called a canal.




God = Supernatural being with immense power unimaginable by humans

Ergo, it's contradictory.

Thats the evidence you need?

I never said that, did I?

Those things are simple iddhi/siddhi powers used by Gautama Buddha, Jesus, and others....they're technically attainable by anyone, you don't even have to be enlightened....

I'm not sure you understand the implications of this incredibly bold statement you have made.

Let me assure you. If raising people from the dead, healing people born blind or with cancer, etc. were all "simple powers attainable by everyone" then why does NO ONE have these abilities? If there are people with these abilities, why is cancer, blindness, etc. still a problem?

VitalOne, since the ability to heal people born blind, walk on water, etc. is "simple," I'm sure you have those abilities. Well, do you? Why is there never any reports of people healing others with cancer, AIDS, etc. with the touch of a hand, or parting entire seas, or walking on a deep body of water?

From your statement, it would seem that the evidence and reports of people performing supernatural acts would be flowing in. Yet in reality, it seems that not one person has attained these "simple powers" you speak of.

Also even if these things were clearly demonstrated you would hear great explanations by atheists about how these things are either natural occurences, coincidences, or magic tricks...they'll try anything to deny evidence

Oh really? What magic trick do you know which can part an entire sea? Which magic trick do you know which can raise someone clinically proven dead for four days? Which magic trick and make someone born blind suddenly see again?

Some things can't be rationalized, VitalOne.

Not at all.
Both Big Bang and any Superstring theory are firmly supported logically within their respective scientific models.
Both god, and the Easter Bunny, are not.

Right, but what exactly caused the Big Bang.

If you say that two universes colliding caused it (which many scientists now believe), then what caused the existence of the two (or infinite) universes?

God = Supernatural being with immense power unimaginable by humans

Ergo, it's contradictory.

Contradictory? How so?

Right, but what exactly caused the Big Bang.

If you say that two universes colliding caused it (which many scientists now believe), then what caused the existence of the two (or infinite) universes?

Irrelevant.

And here's why, which is also the main problem both you and Vital One are having, logically speaking:

when faced with an unknown, the appropriate response it to attempt to explain it in terms of what you already successfully understand.

The most erroneous thing one can do here is to propose a novelty explanation (read: god).

The biggest problem with your position however is this: when introducing an 'explanatory entity', the onus falls upon you and not the one who supports the status quo, even if that status quo simply says: 'I don't know'.

Not at all.
Both Big Bang and any Superstring theory are firmly supported logically within their respective scientific models.
Both god, and the Easter Bunny, are not.

The big bang theory and the superstring theory are not really testable, and have no real empirical evidence behind them, therefore they are not different despite having models, models mean nothing. Therefore they are in the same boat as believing in the Easter Bunny. There are also many models and theories in science placing consciousness independent of the brain, meaning consciousness can continue after death, but atheists will say it doesn't matter.

Comparing the Easter Bunny to God is real foolish since they possess different characteristics. Its like someone saying "you can believe in electromagnetism, but not the ether" when electromagnetism and the ether possess completely different characteristics....

An Easter Bunny is a physical entity, while God isn't....its like someone saying "if bigfoot is real, then aliens must be real" it doesn't make even the slighest bit of sense....


Sorry, you simply don't understand logic.
'Looking to explain' is how we survive and thrive. It's not unreasonable to apply this methodology. And if that methodology was never applied to observed electrical activity, it would have remained 'supernatural.
Again, check out Ockham.
Sure, I understand logic, but you certaintly don't.

The logic is simple, atheists will always look to explain things by naturalistic means, and ignore any chance of something being supernatural or beyond the current knowledge. Therefore atheists will deny anything supernatural by ANY means....meaning even if something really is supernatural atheists will insist it must have happened in some other way....

Like the example with someone parting the sea, no matter what, atheists will look to ANY explanation no matter how unlikely other than a supernatural explanation...why? Its simple, atheists need to preserve their atheistic beliefs, using pure atheistic faith they conclude that it can never be anything supernatural, no matter how unlikely an naturalistic explanation is....


Wrong.
They will be determined to be natural for the purpose of understanding them. As opposed to your position, which would have us stand around slack-jawed in awe of the simplest phenomenae.

p.s.: "miraculous" conjoined with "demonstrated", is contradictory.
No, they will be determined as natural for the purpose of preserving the atheistic faith. No matter how unlikely a naturalistic explanation, atheists will say well thats what must have happened...

Also explain how miraculous and demostrated are contradictory....

Contradictory? How so?

You're providing a definition for something that, as part of its definition, is unimaginable by humans.

The only way you can escape the contradiction here is to assert that you're not human.

The big bang theory and the superstring theory are not really testable, and have no real empirical evidence behind them, therefore they are not different despite having models, models mean nothing. Therefore they are in the same boat as believing in the Easter Bunny. There are also many models and theories in science placing consciousness independent of the brain, meaning consciousness can continue after death, but atheists will say it doesn't matter.


Wrong
All we have are models, and they are indeed, everything.
An empirical evidence means nothing as well. All that matters is falsifiability.
The Easter Bunny is in an entirely different boat because (like god) it can never (even theoretically) be falsified.


Comparing the Easter Bunny to God is real foolish since they possess different characteristics. Its like someone saying "you can believe in electromagnetism, but not the ether" when electromagnetism and the ether possess completely different characteristics....

Not at all.
Regardless, it was a metaphor.
One invisible entity to another.


An Easter Bunny is a physical entity, while God isn't....its like someone saying "if bigfoot is real, then aliens must be real" it doesn't make even the slighest bit of sense....

Interesting, most theistic religions argue that god is indeed material, and even if not, certainly without limitations.


Sure, I understand logic, but you certaintly don't.


I teach it.

And understand spelling and grammar.



The logic is simple, atheists will always look to explain things by naturalistic means, and ignore any chance of something being supernatural or beyond the current knowledge. Therefore atheists will deny anything supernatural by ANY means....meaning even if something really is supernatural atheists will insist it must have happened in some other way....


That's called a straw-man.
You're assuming the very thing in question.

Regardless, for the most part, you're right.
However, note that all of this is entirely contingent upon a definition of 'supernatural'.


Like the example with someone parting the sea, no matter what, atheists will look to ANY explanation no matter how unlikely other than a supernatural explanation...why? Its simple, atheists need to preserve their atheistic beliefs, using pure atheistic faith they conclude that it can never be anything supernatural, no matter how unlikely an naturalistic explanation is....

There is no atheistic belief.
That is a contradiction.



No, they will be determined as natural for the purpose of preserving the atheistic faith. No matter how unlikely a naturalistic explanation, atheists will say well thats what must have happened...

ibid

I never said that, did I?

I'm not sure you understand the implications of this incredibly bold statement you have made.

Let me assure you. If raising people from the dead, healing people born blind or with cancer, etc. were all "simple powers attainable by everyone" then why does NO ONE have these abilities? If there are people with these abilities, why is cancer, blindness, etc. still a problem?

VitalOne, since the ability to heal people born blind, walk on water, etc. is "simple," I'm sure you have those abilities. Well, do you? Why is there never any reports of people healing others with cancer, AIDS, etc. with the touch of a hand, or parting entire seas, or walking on a deep body of water?

From your statement, it would seem that the evidence and reports of people performing supernatural acts would be flowing in. Yet in reality, it seems that not one person has attained these "simple powers" you speak of.
The reason almost "NO ONE" has these abilities is simple, not that many people have reached that level of attainment, there are some though, of which most would never display the powers. There are also lots of reports of these things going on all the time....especially with people being miraculous healed, I see that all the time, people being healed of blindness, cancer, incurable diseases, paralysis, etc....

I don't have these abilities, I only have the subtle ability to sense energy, like emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc...and thats basically the only real ability I have right now...ofcourse if I kept trying to free myself from this bondage I would naturally gain more abilities until I achieved unlimited power, freedom, and happiness (the highest perfection)...


Oh really? What magic trick do you know which can part an entire sea? Which magic trick do you know which can raise someone clinically proven dead for four days? Which magic trick and make someone born blind suddenly see again?

Some things can't be rationalized, VitalOne.
Well atheists will come up with great explanations for how these happened, maybe there's some natural occurence where people come back alive, maybe there's some natural weather disturbance that makes the sea appear parted, and so on....

There are three categories of things which we know:

1) Things we know (through the senses)

2) Things we know we don't know

3) Things we don't know we don't know

glaucon, you are excluding number 3 when really, it can't be excluded. Just because the feeble human mind can't imagine or understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

My pet cat can't understand or "imagine" a proton or electron. Does that mean they don't exist?

Humans can't understand or "imagine" an 11th dimension. Does that mean an 11th dimension doesn't exist?

There are three categories of things which we know:

1) Things we know (through the senses)

2) Things we know we don't know

3) Things we don't know we don't know

glaucon, you are excluding number 3 when really, it can't be excluded. Just because the feeble human mind can't imagine or understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

My pet cat can't understand or "imagine" a proton or electron. Does that mean they don't exist?

Ahhh.. Russell-type categories.
Which are of course, wrong.

They do nothing but give us contradictions, epistemologically speaking.
For example, category 2), must be included in category 1), which of course is then self-contradictory.

Regardless, I'm not excluding the type 3), even if we allow this organizational style. All I have been saying is, when faced with an unknown ( type 3), one must attempt to make it a type 1). What the theist does is to try to force it into a combination of type 1) and 2) (god).

And with respect to your cat, indeed, to your cat, they do not exist.



All in all, to really get back to the kernel of this thread, try this: what about the converse situation?

What would a theist accept as confirmation of the denial of the existence of god?

The answer is most likely to be: 'nothing'.

Wrong
All we have are models, and they are indeed, everything.
An empirical evidence means nothing as well. All that matters is falsifiability.
The Easter Bunny is in an entirely different boat because (like god) it can never (even theoretically) be falsified.
What are you talking about? Empirical evidence means everything and models mean nothing. If empirical evidence disagrees with a model, then the model is wrong.

God can certainly be falsified, to falsify something all you have to do is provide an exception to a hypothesis...


Not at all.
Regardless, it was a metaphor.
One invisible entity to another.
But the Easter Bunny is not invisible, and they are still separate entities...therefore your logic is still flawed "if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, then God must not exist, despite God and Easter Bunny being two completely different things with very different characteristics, despite the fact that one can exist and another at the sametime not exist"


Interesting, most theistic religions argue that god is indeed material, and even if not, certainly without limitations.
Well it depends which religion....and which sect....


I teach it.

And understand spelling and grammar.


That's called a straw-man.
You're assuming the very thing in question.

Regardless, for the most part, you're right.
However, note that all of this is entirely contingent upon a definition of 'supernatural'.
I don't think its straw man...simply because I'm not misrepresenting any position...


There is no atheistic belief.
That is a contradiction.
Yes there is, atheists believe that God or gods do not exist.

The reason almost "NO ONE" has these abilities is simple, not that many people have reached that level of attainment, there are some though, of which most would never display the powers. There are also lots of reports of these things going on all the time....especially with people being miraculous healed, I see that all the time, people being healed of blindness, cancer, incurable diseases, paralysis, etc....

I don't have these abilities, I only have the subtle ability to sense energy, like emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc...and thats basically the only real ability I have right now...ofcourse if I kept trying to free myself from this bondage I would naturally gain more abilities until I achieved unlimited power, freedom, and happiness (the highest perfection)...

Okay, so I think it's safe to say that performing supernatural miracles is NOT simple. In fact, it is extremely difficult which is why it is extremely rare (if it even exists).

But since you see reports of these supernatural occurances "all the time" I'm sure you can post at least one link to an article or other source which reports someone being born blind who was physically touched by an enlightened person and who then could see for the time immediately upon being touched.

Well atheists will come up with great explanations for how these happened, maybe there's some natural occurence where people come back alive, maybe there's some natural weather disturbance that makes the sea appear parted, and so on....

It seems that everyone has a certain level of openness to evidence. A person could be 100% closed-minded and could literally rationalize any physical occurance. A 100% closed-minded person could witness someone being shot in the forehead and heart 40 times with a rifle, only for the wounds to miraculously and instantly heal coupled with a bright light over the shot person.

However, I don't believe there are many 100% closed-minded people. A 90% closed-minded person may view the miracle above as solid enough evidence to convert due to its extreme nature. A 60% closed-minded person would probably be easily converted by a miracle as described above.

So there are distinct levels of openness to belief.

What are you talking about? Empirical evidence means everything and models mean nothing. If empirical evidence disagrees with a model, then the model is wrong.

Wrong.
Empirical evidence is nothing but a confirmation of the theory. The theory however, is contingent upon an architecture: the model.

I'll refer you to Thomas Kuhn here..



God can certainly be falsified, to falsify something all you have to do is provide an exception to a hypothesis...

Not at all.
Falsification requires contradictory evidence.



But the Easter Bunny is not invisible, and they are still separate entities...therefore your logic is still flawed "if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, then God must not exist, despite God and Easter Bunny being two completely different things with very different characteristics, despite the fact that one can exist and another at the sametime not exist"

???

You cannot even understand a metaphor??
At no time did I manufacture the syllogism you've written here..




Well it depends which religion....and which sect....


Exactly my point.



I don't think its straw man...simply because I'm not misrepresenting any position...

You are: you're assuming 'supernatural' can logically apply to something.




Yes there is, atheists believe that God or gods do not exist.

Not at all.

And that was equivocation...

:-)

glaucon, just because humans don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You keep saying a "supernatural" realm, and thus a God, cannot exist simply because humans can't "imagine" or understand this "realm."

We can't understand the 11th dimension either. Does this mean that it doesn't exist? If you believe in the M-Theory, then you must believe in things which you can't understand (any dimension other than the third).

You can't prove to me that there is an 11th dimension, just as no human can prove to you that there is a "spiritual" dimension or realm. Yet your M-Theory relies on the assumption that these other dimensions exist.

Okay, so I think it's safe to say that performing supernatural miracles is NOT simple. In fact, it is extremely difficult, which is why it is extremely rare (if it even exists).

But since you see reports of these supernatural occurances "all the time" I'm sure you can post at least one link to an article or other source which reports someone being born blind who was physically touched by an enlightened person and who then could see for the time immediately upon being touched.
Well anyone can gain these powers, they don't have to be enlightened...they can be a simple holy man or ascetic or something else....

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4324711/detail.html


It seems that everyone has a certain level of openness to evidence. A person could be 100% closed-minded and could literally rationalize any physical occurance. A 100% closed-minded person could witness someone being shot in the forehead and heart 40 times with a rifle, only for the wounds to miraculously and instantly heal coupled with a bright light over the shot person.

However, I don't believe there are many 100% closed-minded people. A 90% closed-minded person may view the miracle above as solid enough evidence to convert due to its extreme nature. A 60% closed-minded person would probably be easily converted by a miracle as described above.

So there are distinct levels of openness to belief.

Yes I agree, there are distinct levels of openness to a belief.

glaucon, just because humans don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

According to who?
According to many theories, this is indeed the case...


You keep saying a "supernatural" realm, and thus a God, cannot exist simply because humans can't "imagine" or understand this "realm."

I never once said that. Nor have I denied the existence of god. I'm simply saying that, contingent upon definition, I cannot conceive of what I would consider to be conclusive evidence.


We can't understand the 11th dimension either. Does this mean that it doesn't exist? If you believe in the M-Theory, then you must believe in things which you can't understand (any dimesion other than the third).


Not to wax into semantics, but I would argue that if we can formulate a thing, we do understand it. So, M-theory is fine, regardless of how 'fuzzy' our understanding of it may be. Similar to 'god' perhaps?

:-)

Wrong.
Empirical evidence is nothing but a confirmation of the theory. The theory however, is contingent upon an architecture: the model.

I'll refer you to Thomas Kuhn here..
But empirical evidence is the real evidence...the reality of things...if you conduct an experiment and the result doesn't agree with some theoritical model then the theory is wrong....wrong wrong wrong

If you have a model and it does not agree with the empirical evidence....the empirical evidence is not thrown out but the model is changed...


Not at all.
Falsification requires contradictory evidence.
No falsification requires an exception...

"Example (Physics): To show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it — that would defeat its status as a physical law — one need only show that an exception to the law is logically possible"


???

You cannot even understand a metaphor??
At no time did I manufacture the syllogism you've written here..
Yes you did manufacture the syllogism I suggested when you said "one invisible entity to another"


You are: you're assuming 'supernatural' can logically apply to something.
Supernatural simply means outside of our current knowlege, outside of nature, etc....so it can logically apply to something...

According to who?
According to many theories, this is indeed the case...



I never once said that. Nor have I denied the existence of god. I'm simply saying that, contingent upon definition, I cannot conceive of what I would consider to be conclusive evidence.




Not to wax into semantics, but I would argue that if we can formulate a thing, we do understand it. So, M-theory is fine, regardless of how 'fuzzy' our understanding of it may be. Similar to 'god' perhaps?

:-)

Agreed.

What would a theist accept as confirmation of the denial of the existence of god?

The answer is most likely to be: 'nothing'.

Good point. So I guess you could say that some believers are very closed-minded as well. That is very true, especially in terms of specific sects of different religions.

But empirical evidence is the real evidence...the reality of things...if you conduct an experiment and the result doesn't agree with some theoritical model then the theory is wrong....wrong wrong wrong

Incorrect.
You're now mysteriously switching to a strict materialism position, and as we all know, there's more to our reality than the merely physical.


If you have a model and it does not agree with the empirical evidence....the empirical evidence is not thrown out but the model is changed...

Correct.
Including non-physical evidence....



No falsification requires an exception...

Incorrect.
An exception does not make a rule.
See material implication.



"Example (Physics): To show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it — that would defeat its status as a physical law — one need only show that an exception to the law is logically possible"

Exactly what I said.
Note: logically possible.



Yes you did manufacture the syllogism I suggested when you said "one invisible entity to another"

Incorrect.
A syllogism requires a conjunction; a comparison is not a conjunction.



Supernatural simply means outside of our current knowlege, outside of nature, etc....so it can logically apply to something...

Interesting 'definition'...
So... life on Venus is supernatural?

Good point. So I guess you could say that some believers are very closed-minded as well. That is very true, especially in terms of specific sects of different religions.

I would tend to say, that when it comes to questions of belief, there can be no wrong party.

Thus, we should be free to believe what we will.....

But... then we'd be talking ethics...

:-)

Well anyone can gain these powers, they don't have to be enlightened...they can be a simple holy man or ascetic or something else....

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4324711/detail.html

Good link. Interesting story. I would consider this strong evidence for the case of a supernatural being which endowed the doctor with the ability to do what he did. After reading some of the testimonies on his site, it seems hard to rationalize his abilities.

Is there any type of physical evidence that could occur which would convince those of you who are atheists to suddenly believe in a God?

Possible evidence includes a person or people:

1) Raising someone else from the dead
2) Walking on water
3) Turning 7 loaves of bread into hundreds of pounds of bread
4) Turning water into wine
5) Making a person born blind see again
6) Making a person paralyzed from the neck down for years suddenly walk again
7) Walking around healing masses of people by simply touching them
8) Healing people with diseases which clearly have no cure
9) Turn a staff of wood into a snake by throwing it on the ground
10) Parting an entire sea
etc.

Evidence also includes:

1) Giant formed pillar of cloud or fire
2) A burning bush which never is consumed and which speaks in an audible voice
etc.
its not clear how these things are evidence of god, since quite a few of them come close to being within the grasp of material science - in other words the nature of these 'miracles' is simply manipulating the material energy and says nothing about the nature of the source of such material energy

there are examples of such persons, found in both historical scriptural reference and even current times, who could be classified as both atheist or theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_de_Deus_%28medium%29)

- in other words possessing mystic power is no sure evidence of god, since even an atheist can possess it