XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:50:57 +1100, Sylvia Else    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >On 4/11/2014 9:39 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >> On 04-November-2014 7:53 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 4/11/2014 4:54 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>> On 02-November-2014 11:32 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 1/11/2014 7:05 AM, The.W@tcher wrote:   
   >>>>>> For years atheists have demanded what they call "evidence" of God's   
   >>>>>> existence,   
   >>>>>> when what they really have been demanding is proof. When presented   
   >>>>>> with evidence   
   >>>>>> of various types they dishonestly have denied the fact that it is   
   >>>>>> evidence,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Care to list what you consider to be the evidence that's been   
   >>>>> presented?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I guess you've never heard of Jesus Christ then?   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, I've heard of him. He appears to have been someone who lived   
   >>> about two thousand years ago, and was killed by the Romans. Some   
   >>> decades afterwards, some stuff was written about him, and in those   
   >>> writings, some improbable events are described.   
   >>>   
   >>> As evidence of God, it's a bit thin,   
   >>   
   >> but it is evidence nevertheless. just as all that is written about him   
   >> is, and the testimony of believers, and the reported miracles, etc.,   
   >> it's ALL evidence   
   >   
   >My claim herein to be worth $Three billion is evidence of my huge   
   >wealth. But it's not very good evidence. Indeed, its value is as near to   
   >zero as it gets. In everyday language, people would be justified in   
   >saying that it's not evidence at all.   
   >   
   >So, if you want, we can split hairs on exactly what is meant by   
   >"evidence", but for practical purposes, the writings, testimony of   
   >believers, and reported miracles, are of so little evidentiary value as   
   >not to count as evidence at all.   
      
       That's a lie.   
      
   >>> particularly when we take into account that the world has always been   
   >>> full of people deceiving others for their own ends, making up stories,   
   >>> and generally have poor memories.   
   >>   
   >> that relates to the value or worth of the evidence which is a different   
   >> matter to the existence of the evidence itself   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Used cars get sold with better documentation than that.   
   >>   
   >> they didn't have cars in those days   
   >   
   >If they had had, they'd have got better documentation with them.   
      
       No one including you can imagine what sort of "evidence" you think there   
   "should be" if there is a God associated with Earth. That's because there's no   
   reason there should be any of the sort of proof you demand. Possibly in a   
   subconscious part of your tiny mind you're aware of the truth that I keep   
   clearly pointing out for you or you wouldn't be ashamed to refer to the proof   
   you demand as proof. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be any reason why you   
   should be ashamed of it and you'd just refer to it as proof, and you also   
   wouldn't be ashamed of the distinction between evidence which we have and the   
   proof which we do not. But as I pointed out you ARE ashamed....LOL....and are   
   no   
   doubt ashamed of your shame...LOL...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)