XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:55:43 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >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.   
      
       That's one of the starting lines they can get as "far" as.   
      
   >faith by itself   
   >can't do anything. 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.   
   >   
   >>>   *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.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>>    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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)