Prove that there can't be evidence for a god or other supernatural things.

At first some definitions:
natural - as found in nature. And with that describable in that.
supernatural - not describable in nature; the opposite of natural.
evidence - a fact or information that is described in a structured way.

Prove by contradiction:
1: Let's assume there is evidence for something supernatural.
2: From (1) it follows that it has to be describable for it to be evidence.
3: If it's describable, it has to be natural.
(3) is a contradiction to (1) thus the assumption is false.
Thus there can't be evidence for something supernatural.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BlueSkyKing · M

No need to assume anything. Evidence is detectable, measurable, and testable.

There can be evidence, but no one accepts the burden of proof. Supernatural does not mean unnatural. Better to say there is no evidence of the supernatural. Discribing is pointless and contradictions are not evidence.

Luke73 · 26-30, M

@BlueSkyKing It seems like you confuse proof with evidence. And when you agree with my definitions and assumptions, you agree with my conclusion too as it follows logical.

And evidence needs to be describable, how would it work otherwise?

BlueSkyKing · M

@Luke73 Explain how can a description be measured. Why should anecdotes be considered based totally on say-so? It’s a lot easier to prove claims than disprove. You don’t need to be a scientist to think like a scientist.

Luke73 · 26-30, M

@BlueSkyKing You got it the wrong way, a measurement is a description, for example the volume a glass describes how much it can hold.

And about what anecdotes are you talking about?

Also, where does that come from? That you can easier prove things than you can disprove? If it's so easy, then do it, prove it.

BlueSkyKing · M

@Luke73 Exactly, prove it. Burden of proof is on those that make the claims. Any scientific claim published means it can and will be attacked by other scientists. Repeat testing is required with a 95% accuracy to be considered a "fact".

Luke73 · 26-30, M

@BlueSkyKing Again you confuse evidence with proof. A proof has nothing to do with accuracy or statitics, it's only about logic. What you mean is evidence. This prove is a logical one, you don't need evidence. All you need is logic. And I've proved my claim if you've read my post.

BlueSkyKing · M

@Luke73

Luke73 · 26-30, M

@BlueSkyKing My bad for assuming you were a logical person.