hezekiah jones

Originally posted by xian
drugs effect the body.

Affect. But in the case I posited, the chemical imbalance in the body affects the individual's moods, from really low lows, to really high highs, which the medications get under control. So if that's just the body being controlled, where is the line of demarcation, so to speak, between the body and the "soul"? Or don't "moods" have anything to do with the "soul"?

xian

i think you are very familiar with the evidence. You just don't label it as such. The arguments for the existence of God contain great amounts of evidence. You just summarily dismiss it as evidence for God and say "what evidence?"

The evidence for God may point to God, it may point somewhere else. You look at the same evidence that I look at, and it points you in another direction than it points me. The evidence that points you to conclude "the universe does not need a creator" points me to conclude "the universe was created". When you say "what evidence" this is a result of you looking at the same evidence, and concluding in a seperate conclusion that I have.

again, there is nothing wrong with that. you conclude differently, based upon the same evidence.

Mad Kally

What evidence? I can look at this so-called evidence and say Santa did it. So let's make your little scenario 3 people.

xian

there you go then. you look at the evidence, and conclude otherwise.

you can say "what evidence" until the sun explodes into a red giant, but I think that you know full well the evidence for God.

Ever see a William L Craig debate?

Regardless of your verdict on the evidence, that does not mean it is not evidence!

We have some bad lawyers in here
*sigh*.

Ok, let me be as clear as I can and educate some of you in matters of law.

When a case is being tried before a jury, evidence is brought in. Both for and against. All the evidence is stacked up on the table and handed to the jury.

THe jury might look at the Plantiff's evidence and one juror says "well I don't see it! This actually points to the defendent" or another says "well, there just isn't enough here"...or another says "yes, this convinces me"

the point is that whether or not you agree with the evidence it is still evidence!

i think it incredibly naieve for atheists to say "what evidence" when there is evidence, no matter how weak you think it is, or where you think it points. WHen a theist presents evidence, you may conclude that it points to something other than God. Regardless of your judgment on the evidence, it is not appropriate to say it isn't evidence. It may point to one thing for you, it may point to another thing for me. The very same, exact things you use to conclude the universe doesn't need a creator, is the exact same things I use to conclude it does. THAT is the evidence I'm talking about.

King Rat

I'll bite, give me an example of this "evidence" so that I may have the pleasure of summarily dismissing it.

I hope this isn't your "evidence." I feel a testimony coming on.

But one will have evidence and repeatablity and one will require a leap of of faith. So, I ask you, why do you summarily reject evidence contrary to the existence of (G)god(s)(ess)(s)?

Tabula_rasa

OK, then. Truce called on topic hijacking.

Hmmm. Are you saying 1) that because you know you exist then your soul exists, or 2) that because something exists a soul exists? If it's 1, then you wouldn't be able to tell if anything else had a soul. This would cast a serious shadow on your logic.

If it's 2, then one would have to conclude that everything has a soul. This would make you pantheistic. Perhaps you'd like to rethink your statement?

BTW, I'm not even sure of your existence. You could be a superbly crafted Turing Machine for all I know. So, even if you could use logic to proves that souls exist (which you cannot) you wouldn't be able to prove that you have a soul (which, as a Turing machine, you do not).

Tabula_rasa

PS. You're response to my previous post did give me a chuckle.

PPS. Your premise is complete BS. Most people do not pray for their souls... they pray for their asses or someone else's corporeal buttocks. OK, this is anectdotal, not evidentiary.

PPPS. Hmmmm, I don't recall stating that I was an atheist. And I sure don't get my fair share of back pats from atheists. I'm more of a secular humanist.

xian

present your evidence for goddesses

King Rat

Huh? Non Sequitur?

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by xian
We have some bad lawyers in here
*sigh*.

Ok, let me be as clear as I can and educate some of you in matters of law.

This should be good. Try another thread though.

xian, are you just going to ignore my question?

Mad Kally

Paul Crouch: Benny Hinn!!! Hezekiah!!! JESUS!!!