XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 12:34:54 -0600, Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   .   
   >mur.@.not. wrote in news:6i4o9apcm33n69742o4f1vmiarr43cti84@4ax.com:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:04:15 -0600, Mitchell Holman    
   >> wrote: .   
   >>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 01:57:44 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 07:50:44 -0600, Mitchell Holman    
   >>>>wrote: .   
   >>>>>mur.@.not. wrote in news:98l88atne0eugqm973n04enllrisnjbvda@4ax.com:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     We have seen your "evidence".   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Like what?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>     Now post your PROOF.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    I don't believe there is any, or any good reason why there should   
   >>>>    be PROOF   
   >>>>even if God really does exist.   
   >>>   
   >>>    So you admit your claims are just speculation.   
   >>   
   >>     Present whatever claims you want people to think you're referring   
   >>     to.   
   >>   
   >> Why do you think there should be proof of it if God does exist? What   
   >> do you think it should be? Where do you think it should be? Why do you   
   >> think it should be made available to us?   
   >   
   >      So there is no proof   
      
       The challenge remains for you atheists to explain why you think there   
   should   
   be. None of you can even imagine any respectable reason why you think there   
   should be...LOL...yet all of you apparently think there should. Just describing   
   your position is quite amusing.   
      
   >and you believe it anyway.   
      
       No I don't have a belief. I consider the possibility that God doesn't   
   exist,   
   and also the possibilities that he does exist.   
      
   >      Why?   
      
       Because as yet I have no reason to put faith in his existence or   
   nonexistence so I consider both.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)