"The burden of proof and need to convince lies squarely on those making supernatural propositions...proof which has not been forthcoming (obviously)."
My formal education was very limited, so maybe you can enlighten me on what you just said.
If a proposition COULD be proven, it would no longer qualify as "supernatural", would it?
Put in a more direct way...... ain't you FOS in this instance?
Thank you for making my original point!
You lack proof so you MUST by default resort to the 'supernatural' all the while failing to prove the supernatural exists! You then attribute that which you can't prove to the supernatural all the while asserting that it is YOUR version of the unproven supernatural that is the correct one!
I can't believe that so many can't grasp this simple point. It's circular reasoning at its 'finest'.
Mister.... you declined to answer my simple question.
And THAT is a fact.
Just like A.S......... posting a bunch of words that have not one damn thing to do with my question.
