XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:45:31 -0600, Mitchell Holman wrote:
.
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:44:17 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 12:34:54 -0600, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>.
>>>mur.@.not. wrote in news:6i4o9apcm33n69742o4f1vmiarr43cti84@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:04:15 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>> wrote: .
>>>>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 01:57:44 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 07:50:44 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>wrote: .
>>>>>>>mur.@.not. wrote in news:98l88atne0eugqm973n04enllrisnjbvda@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have seen your "evidence".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now post your PROOF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe there is any, or any good reason why there should
>>>>>> be PROOF
>>>>>>even if God really does exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you admit your claims are just speculation.
>>>>
>>>> Present whatever claims you want people to think you're referring
>>>> to.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think there should be proof of it if God does exist? What
>>>> do you think it should be? Where do you think it should be? Why do you
>>>> think it should be made available to us?
>>>
>>> So there is no proof
>>
>> The challenge remains for you atheists to explain why you think there
should
>>be. None of you can even imagine any respectable reason why you think there
>>should be...LOL...yet all of you apparently think there should. Just
describing
>>your position is quite amusing.
>>
>>>and you believe it anyway.
>>
>> No I don't have a belief. I consider the possibility that God doesn't
exist,
>>and also the possibilities that he does exist.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because as yet I have no reason to put faith in his existence or
>>nonexistence so I consider both.
>
> Do you extend that same belief to all gods?
One of the basic starting lines you people can't get as "far" as is the
fact
that if there is a God associated with Earth, people have a number of differing
beliefs about "him" and refer to "him" in a number of different ways. To me
that
fact is basic and easy to understand. To you atheists it's incomprehensible.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
