XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 01-December-2014 1:28 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   I think you mean ' can't get as far as'. these ppl are so clueless they   
   aren't even in the race!   
      
      
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png   
   Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com   
   http://pamelageller.com/   
   http://www.barenakedislam.com/   
   "The right to free speech includes the right to offend"   
   "ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"   
   -Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)