Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Devilnaut · 10-31-2002, 07:06 AM

I think there may be some confusion of the meaning of "evidence". Don't forget that false statements can still be supported by evidence. We even have evidence that the world is flat: look around, you can't see any curvature, and from our vantage point it certainly looks flat. It's simply that we also have an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the round earth.

10-31-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecularFuture:

A physical touch, an audible voice, and / or a visible face.

Your touch, your voice, and your face is sufficient evidence and all you must do is realize that you are God, or at least, the are continuity of God while you exist as an immortal being.

God does not exist for mortals but needs mortals to make immortality known and immortality is needed to make infinity known.

It is because we have intimations of immortality that the idea of immortality can be conceived to exist and because it can be conceived to exist is it possible to duplicate it in science, for if it was never a reality we could have never had knowledge thereoff.

Jobar · 10-31-2002, 03:25 PM

SecularFuture, I must say that, at least to me, pug has proven his case here. Testimony, certainly in law (and I would have to say to establish existence claims) is evidence. The question is, does it constitute sufficient evidence? Since pug is an atheist, we need not ask what his answer is. Just because millions of people testify to the existence of God, the fact that they cannot agree on what God is, and on what should be done because of their belief, coupled with the complete lack of physical evidence, proves that testimony alone does not suffice.

Pug, in law, I feel sure that physical evidence almost always trumps testimonial evidence. Do you wish to expound futher on this? I am interested, and I think that SF would benefit from knowing the legal distinctions between the two.

Douglas Bender, galiel, please stay on topic, or start another.

SecularFuture · 10-31-2002, 04:31 PM

Amos,

Quote:

Your touch, your voice, and your face is sufficient evidence and all you must do is realize that you are God, or at least, the are continuity of God while you exist as an immortal being.

No � I�m not buying that. That would be like if I were to say �If it weren�t for a super frog living outside of our universe, frogs wouldn�t exist.�

Jobar,

Quote:

� Pug, in law, I feel sure that physical evidence almost always trumps testimonial evidence.�

Testimony and physical evidence can both carry weight, but we�re talking about the bible here... The bible has no credibility - therefore its testimonies are irrelevant.

10-31-2002, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecularFuture:
Amos,
No � I�m not buying that. That would be like if I were to say �If it weren�t for a super frog living outside of our universe, frogs wouldn�t exist.�

But why are you loking for immortality if the concept thereoff did not already exist in your own mind? You are the "frog" that lives outside of your own universe and you are looking for the superfrog wherein you have an incarnate existence and therefore can be immortal (from the incarnate existence emerges the "manliness of man.)"

Keith Russell · 11-01-2002, 12:21 PM

Amos said:
"But why are you loking for immortality if the concept thereoff did not already exist in your own mind? You are the "frog" that lives outside of your own universe and you are looking for the superfrog wherein you have an incarnate existence and therefore can be immortal (from the incarnate existence emerges the "manliness of man.)" "

Amos, just because we can think of something, doesn't mean that the thing is a valid concept, let alone 'real'.

Where did you get the idea that if a person can think of something, it must 'exist' somewhere outside of his or her consciousness?

Keith.

Hawkingfan · 11-01-2002, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pug846:

Either way, you can’t prove a negative by your reasoning.

100 years ago, someone could have given this argument:

There is no evidence for Blackholes
There is no reason to believe in Blackholes
Therefore – Blackholes do not exist

But there is plenty of evidence in the Bible to support it is a fabricated lie. Therefore, so is God. These inconsistencies are in plain English and require no interpretations.

Hugo Holbling · 11-01-2002, 12:59 PM

pug:

Maybe you should just click on the "bang head" smilie?

11-01-2002, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:

Where did you get the idea that if a person can think of something, it must 'exist' somewhere outside of his or her consciousness?

Keith.

Hi Keith, that is because essence precedes existence and I do not hold that it exists somewhere outside of his or her consciousness. It can just be an idea that exists only in the consciousness such as pink and elephant or mortal and immortal or life and death. The point is that the idea must exist before you can think about it.

pug846 · 11-01-2002, 07:09 PM

I�m tired of writing a paper, so I�ll give this thread one more shot.

SecularFuture said:

Quote:

Testimony and physical evidence can both carry weight, but we�re talking about the bible here... The bible has no credibility - therefore its testimonies are irrelevant.

Hawkingfan said:

Quote:

But there is plenty of evidence in the Bible to support it is a fabricated lie. Therefore, so is God. These inconsistencies are in plain English and require no interpretations.

Okay�I�m going to hope against all hope that I haven�t been clear enough at this point and repeating myself for the 5th time will somehow get my point across. I�ll quote myself:

Quote:

Let�s try this one more time. This makes it attempt number 4 I believe. People will testify that they have been touched by God, have �seen� God, they have �felt� God etc. So, we have testimony of the existence of God from real live people. You continually ignore this point and at this point I have to assume you are either willfully ignoring the points damaging to your case or aren�t reading the entirety of my post. In any other context, million of people testifying that they have felt something or witnessed something is evidence. For the millionth time, it�s not good evidence in the case for God, but it is evidence.

Please, for the love of all that is holy�read this paragraph a couple of times. This will be the 5th time I�ve made this argument in this thread. Notice I don�t claim the bible is evidence here. I�m not talking about the bible here. I'm talking about real live people who are alive today walking down the street. I�m talking about Christians today who claim to have seen, felt, etc. God. They may be wrong, but they testify to this phenomenon. I don�t know how to make it any clearer. The bible is a completely different line of argumentation. DO NOT USE THE WORD BIBLE IF YOU RESPOND TO MY POST. DISCUSS MY ABOVE QUOTED PARGRAPH ONLY.

Why do i have a feeling that I'm not going to get anywhere...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2002, 07:06 AM	#51
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	I think there may be some confusion of the meaning of "evidence". Don't forget that false statements can still be supported by evidence. We even have evidence that the world is flat: look around, you can't see any curvature, and from our vantage point it certainly looks flat. It's simply that we also have an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the round earth.

10-31-2002, 03:25 PM	#53
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	SecularFuture, I must say that, at least to me, pug has proven his case here. Testimony, certainly in law (and I would have to say to establish existence claims) is evidence. The question is, does it constitute sufficient evidence? Since pug is an atheist, we need not ask what his answer is. Just because millions of people testify to the existence of God, the fact that they cannot agree on what God is, and on what should be done because of their belief, coupled with the complete lack of physical evidence, proves that testimony alone does not suffice. Pug, in law, I feel sure that physical evidence almost always trumps testimonial evidence. Do you wish to expound futher on this? I am interested, and I think that SF would benefit from knowing the legal distinctions between the two. Douglas Bender, galiel, please stay on topic, or start another.

11-01-2002, 12:21 PM	#56
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Amos said: "But why are you loking for immortality if the concept thereoff did not already exist in your own mind? You are the "frog" that lives outside of your own universe and you are looking for the superfrog wherein you have an incarnate existence and therefore can be immortal (from the incarnate existence emerges the "manliness of man.)" " Amos, just because we can think of something, doesn't mean that the thing is a valid concept, let alone 'real'. Where did you get the idea that if a person can think of something, it must 'exist' somewhere outside of his or her consciousness? Keith.

11-01-2002, 12:59 PM	#58
Hugo Holbling Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Self-banned in 2005 Posts: 1,344	pug: Maybe you should just click on the "bang head" smilie?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.