XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 08:31:17 -0500, August Rode  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 15/11/2014 7:52 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >> On 15-November-2014 2:36 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>> On 14/11/2014 9:28 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>> On 15-November-2014 9:16 AM, Chicken Runz wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>>> the reports of miracles are evidence for miracles, whether a miracle   
   >>>> happened or not.   
   >>>   
   >>> How can a report of a miracle be evidence for that miracle if that   
   >>> miracle didn't happen?   
   >>   
   >> In the same way that a report of a UFO sighting is evidence for the   
   >> existence of UFO's whether they exist or not.   
   >   
   >One *cannot* have evidence for the existence of something that does not   
   >exist. One can *imagine* or *pretend* that one has evidence for the   
   >existence of something that one believes exists (but doesn't really   
   >exist) but that's as far as it goes.   
      
       No. It goes beyond what you're mentally capable of comprehending....or at   
   least you're acting like you can't mentally comprehend the concept of false   
   evidence. Learning to comprehend what false evidence is, and that it exists, is   
   another one of the starting lines atheists often can't get as "far" as.   
      
   >>> You're talking high-grade nonsense. Nothing new there.   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>   
   >> atheists failing to understand the most basic things. nothing new there.   
   >   
   >I understand what evidence is. You don't seem to have the first clue.   
      
       He understands what false evidence is. You don't seem to have the first   
   clue.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)