XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:23:21 -0600, Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   .   
   >felix_unger  wrote in   
   >news:ceego4Fa945U1@mid.individual.net:   
   >   
   >> On 06-December-2014 5:00 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:09:01 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 05-December-2014 4:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:22:30 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 03-December-2014 10:43 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >>>>>>> "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   >>>>>>> news:ce7l2tFg3jaU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ... 'A miracle is evidence of God even if we know that the   
   >>>>>>>> miracle never happened.' I've never said any such thing, nor   
   >>>>>>>> would I, as it's a distortion of my position on the matter.   
   >>>>>>> This is what you wrote 05-11-2014:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "the reports of miracles are evidence for the existence of God,   
   >>>>>>> whether they occurred or not, ..."   
   >>>>>> "reports" of miracles, you terminal moron!   
   >>>>> "Reports" is irrelevant, but "...whether they occurred or   
   >>>>> not" seems to support his contention of "even if we know   
   >>>>> they never happened".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    
   >>>> reports of miracles as such are evidence for God, just as reports of   
   >>>> UFO's are evidence for UFO's, but since we don't KNOW if any reports   
   >>>> are accurate/false when they're made, ie. if there was actually any   
   >>>> miracle (or UFO) , they remain as evidence. however, should any   
   >>>> report later be shown/proven to be false, then there was no miracle   
   >>>> in that case, and that report ceases to be evidence for God.   
   >>> Any such report, if not shown/proven to be true (to the best   
   >>> of our ability to determine), like *any* report of   
   >>> extraordinary actions or observations in *any* field, is   
   >>> correctly assumed to be false until shown otherwise. To put   
   >>> it more simply, we don't believe extraordinary things until   
   >>> they're shown to be true, rather than believing them unless   
   >>> they're shown to be false, since proving something is false   
   >>> is both far more difficult to accomplish and a shift in the   
   >>> burden of proof of a claim away from the claimant.   
   >>   
   >> I'm not saying that they should be believed to be true, only that they   
   >> form evidence for the event. why are the reports of UFO's called   
   >> evidence for UFO's? likewise reports of miracles are evidence for God.   
   >>   
   >   
   >     Such is the distinction between evidence and proof.   
      
       Apparently from the atheist pov there is no distinction, since they can't   
   distinguish between evidence of God's existence and proof of God's existence.   
   Not a single one of them can, afaik.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)