XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 11:21:07 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:47:08 +1100, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >>On 26-November-2014 5:11 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:30:29 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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 :   
   >>>>>>>> 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 agree that there could be some cause behind the faith; we   
   >>> simply don't have any evidence that there is. I disagree   
   >>> that "faith by itself can't do anything", since one may take   
   >>> action based on a faith which isn't based on reality.   
   >   
   >>but faith cannot create a 'factual basis' to use your terminology. the   
   >>faith you're talking about is merely a form of self motivation.   
   >   
   >Correct.   
   >   
   >>>> 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   
   >   
   >>> Nope, I don't believe that it's not possible, only that   
   >>> evidence supporting it is absent.   
   >   
   >>there is evidence supporting the existence of God, just not the kind   
   >>that you demand.   
   >   
   >There is no *objective* evidence   
      
       I challenge you to try to explain WHAT sort of *objective* evidence you   
   think there "should be", WHERE you think it "should be", and WHY you think it   
   "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with it if he exists. You   
   lose. That's because there's no reason to expect that he should provide it,   
   meaning that the absence of it is meaningLESS. So having confirmed something   
   that's entirely meaningLESS, what do you think you've accomplised?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)