XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 04:38:59 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
.
>In article ,
> Les Hellawell wrote:
>
>> Divers persons wrote:
>>
>> >> You believe divine miracles have happened,
>> >>that makes it YOUR burden to provide proof of
>> >>them.
>> >
>> > Those who believe there's always a different reason have no less burden
>> > of
>> >proof to provide THEIR explanation. They just are totally incapable of
>> >making
>> >any attempt to support their belief.
>>
>> Extraordinary claims of things that cannot happen in nature require
>> extraordinary evidence amounting to proof beyond reasonable doubt
>> whilst claims of events happening within the normal bounds of nature
>> do not require anything near like as much evidence given it is
>> something we know can happen.
>>
>> As Conan Doyle once remarked, Once you have eliminated the impossbile,
>> (whch includes events that cannot happen in nature) whatever remains,
>> however improbably must be the answer.
>>
>> Thus if there are two possible explanations for an event, one based on
>> 'miracles' (god-did-it) and one based on the normal workings of nature
>> then the latter, if viable, should be the one accepted everytime
>> pending further invetigation. An explanation that fits within the
>> bounds of nature and is viable is self proving in basics if not in
>> detail. Which means that if we produce a viable explanation it
>> automatically over turns the miraculous one - even it is not
>> the actual explanation for the event - simply because it brings the
>> event within the bounds of the possible in nature for one
>> reason or another thus elminating un-natural.
>
>I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but that makes perfect sense,
>explains the concept quite simply (except to the simple, who are immune
>to understanding).
There may be no God associated with Eath. But there may be. You're only
capable of considering one of those possibilities. I consider the other and
point out basic things about it for you people, but they are beyond your mental
ability to consider. Your inability is evidence of God's existence from my POV.
>> Thus Darwin has produced a viable explanantion for how we
>> got to be the way we are now (how we evolved) He may have been wrong
>> in some of the details but basically it is a viable explanation that
>> is within the normal workings of nature and more than suffcient to
>> overturn an extraordinary claim some god did it.
>>
>> To continue to insist that some god did it when there is a perfectly
>> good natural explanation is perverse, stupid and pig-headed
>
>And the source of our frustration with the theist trolls.
One of the basic starting lines you people can't get as "far" as is the
possiblity that your faith that there's no God associated with Earth is not
only
stupid and pig-headed, but also evidence of God's existence by being evidence
of
Satan's existence and influence on human minds. Being ashamed of your faith is
of course also strong evidence of the same thing.
>> Reason and sense tells us always to look for a natural expanation
>> for things happening before considering the possiblity of some kind of
>> 'god' (whatever one of those are) intervening. I know of no instance
>> where such an approach has failed. We may not yet have all the
>> answers but as long as we still have natural avenues to explore that
>> is not yet a failure
>
>Yep.
The idea that God makes use of natural methods of doing things is of course
another very VERY basic starting line you people can't get as "far" as.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
