XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   > On 04-December-2014 10:28 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   > > "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen   
      
   (snip)   
      
   > reports of miracles as such are evidence for God, just as reports of UFO's   
   > are evidence for UFO's, but since we don't KNOW if any reports are   
   > accurate/false when they're made, ie. if there was actually any miracle   
   > (or UFO) , they remain as evidence. ...   
      
   And I say that reports of miracles/UFO's/etc are not evidence whether they   
   are shown to be true or not. A while back I wrote that even if the grainy,   
   out of focus, 78 pixel monochrome blob in a picture from 1956, that could be   
   interpreted as anything from a bird to a rock to a UFO, turned out to be a   
   UFO (something when can determine because somebody else had taken a clearer   
   picture or the damned thing actually landed) it still isn't evidence of   
   UFO's visiting Earth. The first image cannot be evidence of anything because   
   it is inconclusive.   
      
   > ... however, should any report later be shown/proven to be false, then   
   > there was no miracle in that case, and that report ceases to be evidence   
   > for God. ...   
      
   The reports themselves never were evidence if they need to be proven true or   
   false by other evidence.   
      
      
   > ... this really is basic stuff for anyone with common sense.   
      
   It is, isn't it. A surveillance camera shows a person shooting another   
   person. It happens so far away from the camera that you cannot possibly   
   identify the shooter based on those images. They can never be considered   
   evidence of who the shooter is regardless that he might have been caught on   
   another camera closer by.   
      
      
   --   
   Malte Runz   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)