XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 25-November-2014 5:07 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
      
   > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:55:43 +1100, the following appeared   
   > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >> 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. faith by itself   
   >> can't do anything.   
      
   so do you agree or not?   
      
   >>   I could have faith that I won't die from cancer, but   
   >> that won't stop me dying unless something happens to prevent me from dying.   
   > Bad example; you have no effective control over whether you   
   > die of cancer. You *do* have control, however, over how you   
   > act, and that can be influenced by what you believe. And   
   > without evidence that what you believe is correct that's   
   > *all* you have.   
      
   the bottom line is that you don't know if someone has/had/can have a   
   real experience of God or not. you can only choose to believe that it's   
   not possible, but I don't see any sense in doing so   
      
   >   
   >>>>    *Any* faith can change peoples' lives, even faiths   
   >>>> which are contradictory to each other, which would not be   
   >>>> possible if one faith were "true" and the others "false",   
   >>>> and only the "true" one worked for the change.   
   >> I need to know what you're talking about. we need specific examples.   
   > Sure. Take any two religions, Catholicism and Islam. Belief   
   > in each can affect how their adherents act, and those acts   
   > are emphatically *not* identical, just as the tenets of the   
   > two religions aren't. Since only one (at most) can be   
   > correct, but both cause their respective believers to act in   
   > certain *different* ways, at least one of them is causing   
   > actions solely on the basis of incorrect belief. Add in   
   > every religion over the past 5000 years (Baal worship and   
   > practice would be a good additional example, as would the   
   > various flavors of animism) and you have a situation in   
   > which the overwhelming majority is wrong *by definition*,   
   > yet their beliefs affect their actions in effectively   
   > identical ways determined by those wrong beliefs.   
      
   these discussions do get very confusing, but once again, you cannot know   
   that any beliefs associated with any faith are devoid of any efficacy   
   regards spiritual revelations, experiences, enlightenment, etc.,   
      
   >   
   >>>>>>     But just as an example, anything which   
   >>>>>> violates known physical laws *and* leaves indications which   
   >>>>>> *cannot* have resulted from operation of those laws would be   
   >>>>>> worth investigating on a scientific basis. But it's also basic that   
   >>>>>> anything which *can* be explained by natural causes requires   
   >>>>>> no more explanation than those same causes   
   >>>>> agreed   
   > So why insist on explanations with no evidence other than   
   > belief in support?   
      
   I don't insist on any explanations that I'm aware of   
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)