XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen news:cbtuloFdopdU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > On 05-November-2014 7:53 AM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >   
   > > "felix_unger" skrev i meddelelsen   
   > > news:cbrpcaFqsrbU1@mid.individual.net...   
      
   (snip)   
      
   > > Come on, man! If you say that the reported miracles is your example of   
   > > evidence for the existence of God, you damn well have to show me that   
   > > they actually occured as claimed.   
   >   
   > no I don't. do I have to prove that UFO's exist to know that the reported   
   > sightings of UFO's are evidence for UFO's?   
      
   How can the 'sightings' be evidence of something if that something doesn't   
   exist? How can you say that people being healed at Lourdes is evidence of   
   God, if you cannot show one documented example of a real healing?   
      
   >   
   > > If they didn't they would be neither miracles nor evidence. Hope you see   
   > > that.   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > the reports of miracles are evidence for the existence of God, whether   
   > they occurred or not, or whether God exists or not. ...   
      
   That's where you're wrong. Ice on a lake is evidence of below freezing   
   temperatures. But if the 'ice' turns out to be plastic, the plastic isn't   
   evidence of low temperatures. If the blob in the photo turns out to be a   
   speck of dust on the lense, it is not evidence of UFO's. And if you couldn't   
   tell the difference from the beginning the blob is evidence of neither.   
      
   > ... it's just plain common sense; ...   
      
   Comment on the ice/plastic example.   
      
      
   > ... to anyone except atheists apparently!.   
   > what you keep harping on about and coming back to is the validity of any   
   > evidence. ...   
      
   Exactly. Evidence is all about validity. An unsubstantiated tale of a healed   
   hand from 1858 is about as invalid as it gets, and is not evidence of God   
   performing miracles. (You didn't reveal whether or not you believe that   
   those hands were actually healed. I take that as a sign of common sense.)   
      
      
   > ... you want to discuss and evaluate the worth of the evidence without   
   > admitting that evidence exists. that's crazy!   
      
   Wrong. You want to call 'the face Jesus' on a burnt toast evidence of God. I   
   don't say the toast doesn't exist, I say it's not evidence regardless of   
   what others might believe. I know people claim to have been healed at   
   Lourdes, but noone has ever been shown to have actually been miraculously   
   healed.   
      
      
   --   
   Malte Runz   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)