XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:08:13 -0500, August Rode  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 21/11/2014 9:25 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 08:31:17 -0500, August Rode  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> On 15/11/2014 7:52 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>> On 15-November-2014 2:36 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>>>> On 14/11/2014 9:28 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 15-November-2014 9:16 AM, Chicken Runz wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> the reports of miracles are evidence for miracles, whether a miracle   
   >>>>>> happened or not.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> How can a report of a miracle be evidence for that miracle if that   
   >>>>> miracle didn't happen?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In the same way that a report of a UFO sighting is evidence for the   
   >>>> existence of UFO's whether they exist or not.   
   >>>   
   >>> One *cannot* have evidence for the existence of something that does not   
   >>> exist. One can *imagine* or *pretend* that one has evidence for the   
   >>> existence of something that one believes exists (but doesn't really   
   >>> exist) but that's as far as it goes.   
   >>   
   >>      No. It goes beyond what you're mentally capable of comprehending....or   
   at   
   >> least you're acting like you can't mentally comprehend the concept of false   
   >> evidence. Learning to comprehend what false evidence is, and that it   
   exists, is   
   >> another one of the starting lines atheists often can't get as "far" as.   
   >   
   >I think you need to review the definition of 'evidence'. Evidence is a   
   >fact or observation that supports the truth of a claim. If the claim is   
   >false, then you cannot have evidence that supports its truth. The best   
   >you can do is be *mistaken* about having evidence that supports the claim.   
      
       You aren't aware of some of the most obvious things in life. People say the   
   sun rises. By looking at what happens at dawn the evidence seems obvious that   
   the sun does rise. The evidence is false evidence. You might never figure out   
   why and if you can't figure it out let me know and I'll point out why for you.   
   Then when you still can't comprehend we'll know that the problem is your own   
   mental inability. When we see that mental inability associated with such an   
   obvious situation as the one I'm pointing out for you, it will be no wonder   
   that   
   you can't comprehend similar examples in situations where it's much less   
   obvious.   
      
   >>>>> You're talking high-grade nonsense. Nothing new there.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>   
   >>>> atheists failing to understand the most basic things. nothing new there.   
   >>>   
   >>> I understand what evidence is. You don't seem to have the first clue.   
   >>   
   >> He understands what false evidence is. You don't seem to have the first   
   >> clue.   
   >   
   >"False evidence" is the same as "not evidence". Perhaps neither of you   
   >know what the word 'false' means.   
      
       Perhaps we can appreciate the distinction between false and not, while you   
   don't have any clue what the distintion is. That seems much more likely, since   
   the distinction does exist but you can't comprehend what it is.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)