XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:21:31 -0500, Ralph  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 12/7/2014 8:24 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:23:21 -0600, Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> felix_unger  wrote in   
   >>> news:ceego4Fa945U1@mid.individual.net:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 06-December-2014 5:00 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:09:01 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 05-December-2014 4:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:22:30 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 03-December-2014 10:43 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   >>>>>>>>> news:ce7l2tFg3jaU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> ... 'A miracle is evidence of God even if we know that the   
   >>>>>>>>>> miracle never happened.' I've never said any such thing, nor   
   >>>>>>>>>> would I, as it's a distortion of my position on the matter.   
   >>>>>>>>> This is what you wrote 05-11-2014:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> "the reports of miracles are evidence for the existence of God,   
   >>>>>>>>> whether they occurred or not, ..."   
   >>>>>>>> "reports" of miracles, you terminal moron!   
   >>>>>>> "Reports" is irrelevant, but "...whether they occurred or   
   >>>>>>> not" seems to support his contention of "even if we know   
   >>>>>>> they never happened".   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>> 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. 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.   
   >>>>> Any such report, if not shown/proven to be true (to the best   
   >>>>> of our ability to determine), like *any* report of   
   >>>>> extraordinary actions or observations in *any* field, is   
   >>>>> correctly assumed to be false until shown otherwise. To put   
   >>>>> it more simply, we don't believe extraordinary things until   
   >>>>> they're shown to be true, rather than believing them unless   
   >>>>> they're shown to be false, since proving something is false   
   >>>>> is both far more difficult to accomplish and a shift in the   
   >>>>> burden of proof of a claim away from the claimant.   
   >>>> I'm not saying that they should be believed to be true, only that they   
   >>>> form evidence for the event. why are the reports of UFO's called   
   >>>> evidence for UFO's? likewise reports of miracles are evidence for God.   
   >>>>   
   >>>      Such is the distinction between evidence and proof.   
   >>      Apparently from the atheist pov there is no distinction, since they   
   can't   
   >> distinguish between evidence of God's existence and proof of God's   
   existence.   
   >> Not a single one of them can, afaik.   
   >   
   >I don't know a single one of us who gives a shit about anything   
   >concerning evidence of your   
   >god, except that you can't produce any:-)).   
      
       You proved what I pointed out to be correct at least in your particular   
   case.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)