XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:02:29 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
.
>On 08-December-2014 12:24 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:25:14 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>> ..
>>> On 01-December-2014 1:28 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:55:43 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> ..
>>>>> On 22-November-2014 5:04 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:45:03 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:35:16 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19-November-2014 5:21 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:22:42 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 17-November-2014 4:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:41:33 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-November-2014 5:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:29:45 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-November-2014 5:23 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 00:28:47 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14-November-2014 11:30 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My position is more along the lines that if God exists[*],
then there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is either objective evidence of that existence, or there's
not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is objective evidence, I'd like to know what it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's not, then, regardless of whether God actually
exists, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is why you'd believe that He does, given the
absence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you accept that people may have/have had real experiences
of God, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are empowered by faith to change their life?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about Sylvia, but *I* accept that there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who believe they have had such experiences, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith (defined as "belief without proof") can certainly be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-changing. Neither of these has anything to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I didn't say ppl who 'believe they have had such
experiences' I said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'have had'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So they have objective evidence which shows that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences were real, and not simply something they believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened? If not, how is such belief verified?
>>>>>>>>>>>> how could ppl prove they have had some experience of/from God?
>>>>>>>>>>> By having objective evidence that they did, perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>> such as? this is the question that mur keeps asking. what objective
>>>>>>>>>> evidence would you expect to see/have that someone has had an
experience
>>>>>>>>>> of God?
>>>>>>>>> Mur won't provide objective evidence because he presumably
>>>>>>>>> has none, and tries to shift the burden of proof to his
>>>>>>>>> opponents; don't sink to mur's level. Objective evidence is
>>>>>>>>> simply evidence that any disinterested observer can observe.
>>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone but the claimant to provide the
>>>>>>>>> evidence, and once the claimant has what he/she considers to
>>>>>>>>> be objective evidence it's up to him/her to present it. This
>>>>>>>>> is pretty basic.
>>>>>>>> but you're being unrealistic for the simple reason that there would be
>>>>>>>> no objective/physical evidence of a spiritual encounter. would you
>>>>>>>> expect the persons face to be glowing? or them to be floating off the
>>>>>>>> ground? but religious faith has changed ppls lives. that is objective
>>>>>>>> evidence, is it not?
>>>>>>> That faith can change peoples' lives is indeed objective
>>>>>>> evidence, but only that faith can change peoples' lives.
>>>>>>> It's not evidence that there is any factual basis for that
>>>>>>> faith.
>>>>> a changed life is objective evidence that faith can change lives, but it
>>>>> is also evidence that there is a factual basis producing the result.
>>>>> that could be just be some psychological mechanism, or it could be that
>>>>> there is some spiritual force, or other power at work.
>>>> That's one of the starting lines they can get as "far" as.
>>> I think you mean ' can't get as far as'.
>> Yes, my bad mistake.
>
>I knew what it was but I thought I would get the record straight
Thanks.
>>> these ppl are so clueless they
>>> aren't even in the race!
>> AFAIK all evidence shows that they can't even appreciate what it is.
>
>they consider themselves to be so authoritative and knowledgeable on
>these topics, but they are basically clueless. we have been discussing
>evidence ad nauseaum, yet they seem unable to understand such basic
>facts as evidence can be weak (in fact so weak evidence as to barely
>qualify as evidence) or strong, false or true, can prove something (but
>doesn't need to to still be evidence), etc., .
They can't distinguish between any of them, much less between any evidence
and the concept of proof. They are truly morons in regards to this topic.
>but then what can you
>expect from vain ppl who think they 'know' what they can only believe, lol!
Yes, and most of them are ashamed to admit they think they know God doesn't
exist.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
